PUBLIC HEARINGDrake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
PUBLIC HEARING SYDNEY TAR PONDS AND COKE OVENS SITES REMEDIATION PROJECT JOINT REVIEW PANEL ____________________________________________________________ V O L U M E 14 ____________________________________________________________ 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: Saturday, May 13, 2006 PRESENTERS: Sierra Club of Canada: Ms. Elizabeth May Dr. Tim Lambert Dr. Neil Carman Dr. Paul Connett Mr. Eric Brophy ____________________________________________________________ Recorded by: Drake Recording Services Limited 1592 Oxford Street Halifax, NS B3H 3Z4 Per: Patricia Cantle, CCR
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
I N D E X O F P R O C E E D I N G S PAGE NO. THE CHAIRPERSON - OPENING REMARKS . . . . . . . . . 2381 SIERRA CLUB of CANADA MS. ELIZABETH MAY, DR. TIM LAMBERT, DR. NEIL CARMAN and DR. PAUL CONNETT . . . . . 2388 Questioned by Joint Review Panel . . . . . . . 2486 Questioned by Mr. Frank Potter (STPA) . . . . 2514 Questioned by Mr. Jonathan Kenyon (AGNS) . . . 2517 Questioned by Mr. Stephen McGrath (AGNS) . . . 2531 Questioned by Mr. Keith MacDonald . . . . . . 2544 Questioned by Dr. Les Ignasiak . . . . . . . . 2550 Questioned by Ms. Mary-Ruth MacLellan . . . . 2552 Questioned by Ms. Marlene Kane . . . . . . . . 2559 Questioned by Mr. Donald Gauthier . . . . . . 2565 Questioned by Ms. Suzanne Spencer . . . . . . 2569 Questioned by Mr. Stephen Tobin . . . . . . . 2574 Questioned by Mr. Stephen Rolls . . . . . . . 2579 Questioned by Mr. Cameron Ells . . . . . . . . 2584 MR. ERIC BROPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2588 Questioned by Joint Review Panel . . . . . . . 2615 Questioned by Ms. Debbie Ouelette . . . . . . 2624 Questioned by Ms. Elizabeth May . . . . . . . 2625 Questioned by Ms. Mary-Ruth MacLellan . . . . 2628
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
I N D E X O F U N D E R T A K I N G S NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. FOR SIERRA CLUB of CANADA (DR. CARMEN) (1) To provide material from the specific studies he reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2507 (2) To provide clarification as to which documents were reviewed for his presentation . 2535 FOR THE SYDNEY TAR PONDS AGENCY (1) To provide the Panel with information on the extent of what will be issued from the dumpstacks and how the STPA determined those estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2563
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2381 1 --- Upon commencing at 9:04 a.m. 2 THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, ladies and 3 gentlemen. We're going to begin the session. 4 I do see a few people that I have not seen 5 before, so I will just very briefly introduce us. 6 My name is Lesley Griffiths. To my right 7 is Mr. Bill Charles. To my left is Dr. Louis LaPierre, 8 and together, we make up the Environmental Review Panel - 9 - Federal Provincial Environmental Review Panel for the 10 Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens Site Remediation Project. 11 Our agenda today, on a very beautiful day, 12 is that we will begin with some housekeeping issues, 13 which we always do. 14 Then this morning, the whole of the 15 morning, we have four presentations on behalf of Sierra 16 Club of Canada. 17 We will take a break somewhere in the 18 middle of those. 19 There will not be questioning during the 20 morning. We will just have the presentations, one after 21 another. 22 We will then take a lunch break and 23 return, and then we will have questioning, and I will 24 explain the questioning process when we return this 25 afternoon.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2382 1 So, on to housekeeping. I understand that 2 the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency has an undertaking that they 3 wish to speak to. 4 Mr. Potter? 5 MR. POTTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. We 6 actually -- we have two. 7 One we will just -- we'll quickly read it 8 in. It's undertaking No. 16 for the costs regarding 9 other options in Table 2-13.2 from May 1st. 10 And we're going to very quickly put up on 11 the screen a table for undertaking No. 9, the cost of 12 incineration. 13 Mr. Kaiser will quickly address No. 16, 14 just verbally reading it in. 15 Mr. Shosky will go through the undertaking 16 No. 9. 17 MR. KAISER: Thank you. 18 Undertaking 16, the increase in costs from 19 what was presented in the RAER to what is shown as 20 adjusted cost in Table 213-2 of the EIS is due to cost 21 estimate reviews which were conducted by governments 22 during 2003. 23 This review effectively advanced the 24 estimate from a remedy estimate to an implementation 25 estimate.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2383 1 For example, the RAER cost would have 2 included things like the cost to operate machinery and 3 equipment such as excavators and pumps needed to move 4 materials. 5 What is not -- what are not shown in the 6 RAER costs are the costs of things like project 7 management, volume variance, inflation, risk to the 8 project, insurance and bonding, taxes, etc. 9 As a result of this review, and by 10 example, the RAER costs for the Option 3 Tar Ponds and 11 Option 3 Coke Ovens were three hundred and thirty million 12 and a hundred and twenty million respectively. 13 On review, and in determining full 14 implementation costs, these increase to six hundred and 15 eighteen million and three hundred and -- or, sorry, two 16 hundred and thirty-two million respectively. 17 Therefore, the costs as presented in the 18 RAER for these options, together at four hundred and 19 fifty million, would be expected to actually be in the 20 range of eight hundred and fifty million at full 21 implementation. 22 Thank you. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Kaiser. 24 Mr. Shosky? 25 MR. SHOSKY: This -- we will have that on
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2384 1 in a second again. 2 The way that we put this table together 3 was so that it hopefully will answer Dr. Charles' 4 question of separating out the project into terms that 5 easily could be able to plug in or take away alternative 6 technologies, making the math a lot simpler for somebody 7 to do a comparative analysis. 8 And I'll have that up in a moment. I 9 apologize for the delay. 10 What I'd like to do is just kind of walk 11 through how I envision that the table can be used. 12 Hopefully this meets the intent of the requirements that 13 you have. 14 Can you increase -- just bear with us a 15 second. There we go. 16 The first line item is the government 17 costs, and these have been covered in previous 18 discussions earlier in the Panel hearings. It includes 19 the preventative works, and then the engineering 20 services. 21 So, if you take the money that was -- that 22 Public Works had talked about earlier, seventy-seven 23 million dollars ($77 million), and you add the 24 engineering services to it, the committed funds over the 25 life of the project for the engineering and government
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2385 1 costs and the preventable works comes out to about a 2 hundred and eight million of the four hundred. 3 The infrastructure development would be 4 needed in most cases for all alternative technologies. 5 It's still a component that needs to be conducted, and 6 that's approximately fifty million dollars ($50 million). 7 The engineered contained system with the 8 cap and the additional groundwater controls separated out 9 at sixty million. 10 On the thermal treatment portion there, we 11 lumped the rail transport and the thermal treatment, if 12 you add that together, it comes in to be consistent with 13 the response, I think, we had in IR 1 of what our thermal 14 incineration costs were, but we broke the rail up as a 15 separate component, because perhaps if another technology 16 were used, that may or may not be necessary as part of 17 the equation, depending on how the other people were to 18 lay out their project. 19 We had stabilization basically at forty- 20 five dollars ($45) a tonne, at a cost of around forty- 21 five million as a stand alone technology item. 22 And then, in any case that occurs, there 23 will be environmental monitoring and some form of 24 maintenance, regardless of what type of technology is 25 used. There will continue to be pretty stringent
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2386 1 monitoring, depending on whatever type of technology that 2 somebody desired to use. 3 So, in our opinion, the -- these, I hope, 4 meet the intent of what you were looking for with being 5 able to break up the technology as a separate item from 6 the rest of the project. 7 And as we discussed earlier, typically 8 these technology costs typically only run anywhere from 9 20 to 30 percent of the project. 10 MR. POTTER: That's it, Madam Chair. 11 MR. CHARLES: Can I just -- a point of 12 clarification. 13 These added costs that you're talking 14 about in relation to Option 3, they're also added costs 15 that are added to all the other options as well, are they 16 not? 17 MR. SHOSKY: That's correct. And I -- and 18 when you start putting together the whole project, I 19 think what people a lot of times fail to realize is that 20 while there is four hundred million dollars ($400 21 million) there, it costs money to administer a project of 22 that nature. 23 A lot of that's borne right now by the 24 government. That's not free money. That all comes out 25 of that capped amount of funds.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2387 1 MR. CHARLES: Well, I think that does it 2 for me. 3 MR. SHOSKY: Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Shosky. 5 A second housekeeping item is that 6 yesterday, Fisheries and Oceans Canada provided to the 7 Panel an undertaking they had made, so they have provided 8 more information on the habitat improvement measures that 9 have been taken on the upper reaches of Wash Brook. 10 So, that's -- we now have that, and that 11 will be on the registry and be available. 12 And then, thirdly, I would just ask are 13 there any of the registered presenters here, who have 14 made undertakings, who have anything to present? 15 As I see no one, we will move to our first 16 presentation. 17 Now, I understand there's a bit of 18 technology that has to be dealt with. A cable has to be 19 moved, so we'll just take a very brief break, and then I 20 will introduce our presenters. 21 RECESS: 9:13 A.M. 22 RESUME: 9:14 A.M. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: We are now going to move 24 to our presentations this morning. 25 And as I said earlier, we have four
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2388 1 presentations, and as they are all connected -- 2 associated with Sierra Club of Canada, we decided that 3 all four presentations would be given back to back, with 4 a break, rather than a presentation and a question 5 session, as we have been doing in -- on other days of the 6 hearing. 7 So, we are very pleased to have Sierra 8 Club of Canada here this morning. 9 And I will ask Ms. May to introduce her 10 fellow presenters. 11 You -- as you know, you have -- the 12 arrangement is that you have a total of -- you have 40 13 minutes, followed by three 30 minute presentations, but 14 we'll treat that as a block of time, but that will be the 15 total limit. 16 ------------------------------------- 17 --- PRESENTATION BY SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA 18 (MS. ELIZABETH MAY, DR. TIM LAMBERT, DR. NEIL CARMEN 19 and DR. PAUL CONNETT) 20 MS. MAY: Thank you, Madam Chair. And 21 good morning and thank -- members of the Panel and good 22 morning to members of the public and to the Sydney Tar 23 Ponds Agency presenters and other intervenors in this 24 very important process. 25 On behalf of the Sierra Club of Canada,
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2389 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 the Cape Breton Group Atlantic Canada Chapter, and the 2 National Organization, I would like to thank you for this 3 opportunity to present our concerns. 4 Just to give you a sense of what we'll do, 5 I'll be presenting an overview brief on some key policy 6 issues, then technical expert presentations will be made 7 first by Dr. Tim Lambert, Adjunct Professor at University 8 of Calgary Community Health Sciences, who is also the 9 Manager of Risk Assessment for the Calgary Health Region. 10 He'll be followed by Dr. Neil Carmen, who 11 has extensive background as a -- also a PhD, who has been 12 working in the area of hazardous waste incineration, was 13 a former regulator of incinerators with the State of 14 Texas, has testified at numerous hazardous waste 15 incineration U.S. EPA workshops and hearings, and since 16 1994 has worked on the PCB Working Group with the Sierra 17 Club in the United States. He's testified to State 18 Legislatures, he has a quite extensive c.v. 19 And lastly, we'll hear from Dr. Paul 20 Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence 21 University in New York. 22 On February 16th, 2006, having read the 23 entire Environmental Impact Statement and shared it with 24 expert advisors, we sent our list of deficiencies to 25 the -- regarding this EIS to the Panel.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2390 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 We submitted that: 2 "One of the worst examples we have 3 ever reviewed of an EIS, padded with 4 unnecessary detail on the irrelevant, 5 with scant attention to the 6 essential, is this document. Why was 7 it necessary to describe in detail 8 the numbers of kilometres of road in 9 CBRM, the organization of the Police 10 Department, or to conduct a survey of 11 ambient noise, including recording 12 the number of barking dogs in New 13 Waterford, in a report aimed at 14 reviewing the environmental and 15 health impacts of the cleanup of the 16 country's most serious toxic waste 17 site in the midst of a populated 18 area? That level of detail is absent 19 from more germane questions. The EIS 20 still does not specify what kind of 21 incinerator is being proposed. It 22 fails to specify the location of the 23 incinerator, leaves the details of 24 the single largest element of the 25 plan, the stabilization and
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2391 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 solidification, completely vague, by 2 concrete or other medium, stirred or 3 poured. The implications of stirring 4 hundreds of thousands of tonnes of 5 sludge contaminated with toxic 6 chemicals capable of lateralizing and 7 migrating off site are large for 8 human health. The failure to do more 9 than suggest in vague terms the 10 approach to be pursued is 11 astonishing." 12 Well, that was our deficiency request. 13 The hearing thus far has reinforced our 14 anger that at this stage in the process, critical 15 questions are routinely deflected, with the response that 16 in this pre-design phase, no firm answers exist. 17 Moreover, even the levels of performance 18 to be required are still under discussion with the 19 regulators. 20 The permissible levels of air 21 contaminants, the acceptable levels of water 22 contamination, and the residual levels of toxic metals, 23 PCBs and PAHs in the Coke Ovens and Tar Ponds are not yet 24 determined. 25 The whole STPA approach to presentation of
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2392 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 the project for review has a Lewis Carroll quality: 2 "We will abide by all requirements, 3 and we will set the requirements low 4 enough to ensure we can abide by 5 them." 6 The community will never again have the 7 opportunity presented by a full Panel review to obtain 8 clear answers. 9 Nevertheless, what answers there are 10 confirm that this burn and bury plan must be rejected. 11 Over the rest of today and Monday evening, 12 we will bring forward expert evidence as to the total 13 unsuitability of this site for stabilization and 14 solidification, as well as demonstrate the unreliability 15 and potential health and environmental impacts due to 16 mobile incineration. 17 Sierra Club of Canada will also bring 18 forward extensive evidence, as the unacceptable levels of 19 contamination remaining in the community following even a 20 completely successful execution of this project as 21 described. 22 I refer to the contamination of backyards, 23 basements and soil throughout the area that was the 24 receptor for the staggering quantities of particulate 25 from the Steel Plant, and effluents from the Coke Oven
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2393 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 site. 2 I first became involved in this issue when 3 I was Senior Policy Advisor to the Federal Minister of 4 Environment. 5 In 1986, I assisted in the preparation of 6 the Cabinet Memorandum to obtain funds for the cleanup of 7 the Sydney Tar Ponds. 8 I recall being shocked to read the draft 9 prepared by the Department explaining that the -- and the 10 Department I refer to is Environment Canada -- explaining 11 that the Sydney Tar Ponds were Canada's largest toxic 12 waste site. I had lived in Cape Breton for many years 13 and never knew that. A $34.3 million dollar 14 Federal/Provincial Agreement was reached, the promotional 15 brochure declared: 16 "Thanks to a historic 1986 Federal/ 17 Provincial Agreement, Sydney, Nova 18 Scotia will be rid of this 19 environmental blight by the mid- 20 1990s." 21 I will not recap the whole tragic saga of 22 failed cleanup attempts, both in the interest of time and 23 because this process relates to the current proposal and 24 not to past mistakes. 25 Nevertheless, the historical context of
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2394 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 this project is important, so I would like to provide the 2 Panel copies of a book I co-authored with Maude Barlow on 3 this issue in 2000, and I have given them to your very 4 able staff. 5 In this overview presentation I wish to 6 concentrate on two issues of public policy, the adequacy 7 of community consultation and the dangers of reliance on 8 risk assessment. 9 It is not an exaggeration to say that 10 effective and meaningful public participation is the 11 cornerstone of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 12 That commitment to public participation is reflected in 13 the guidelines for this review. 14 At Section 5.2.2 of the guidelines the 15 Proponent is required: 16 "To demonstrate how the concerns of 17 residents, aboriginal people, local 18 government and other stakeholders who 19 are likely to be affected by the 20 project have been identified and 21 addressed. The EIS will describe 22 objectives, methods and results 23 achieved in these discussions." 24 The Proponent has boasted of the extensive 25 public engagement, "more than 100,000 volunteer hours" --
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2395 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 that's a quote from the transcript of Mr. Potter's 2 opening statement -- that went into the JAG process. 3 Sierra Club of Canada was one of the 4 founding groups back in the summer of 1996 when the first 5 cover over with slag proposal was rejected and the JAG 6 established. Sierra Club of Canada had our criticisms of 7 the JAG process. We ultimately withdrew over the 8 withholding of data and the chair's refusal to admit 9 toxic soil sampling tests were in JAG's possession. 10 Nevertheless, the JAG process, after some 11 700 meetings and over 1,700 workbooks filled out by 12 community members, chose a suite of technologies that had 13 scored well in the bench scale technology testing. The 14 least favourite option was incineration and 15 solidification. 16 The Proponent has never adequately 17 explained why the result of those volunteer hours and 18 extensive consultations was rejected. This disregard of 19 community concerns has been routine in governmental 20 management of the Tar Ponds issue for decades. 21 The Sydney Tar Ponds Agency has, as this 22 Panel has heard, made commitments to the community only 23 to violate them within months. The Agency made a verbal 24 commitment to Grand Lake residents that only the highest 25 standards would be applied to any mobile incinerators.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2396 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 It is now transparent that the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency 2 wants to transfer the land from federal to provincial 3 ownership to evade higher standards. 4 The Agency has botched cleanup attempts of 5 smaller elements of the larger plan allowing naphthalene 6 exceedances from the Domtar cleanup while telling the 7 community that the naphthalene odour was a figment of 8 their imaginations. 9 In fact, the Domtar tank cleanup failed to 10 control emissions through a comedy of errors that 11 included; not noticing that the charcoal filtration 12 system was not functioning, not having a single charcoal 13 filter on hand to replace the ones too full of 14 contaminants to be functional, having air monitoring 15 stations that malfunctioned, not having calibrated the 16 air monitoring equipment, and having a lab misread the 17 results. 18 The mistakes would be easier to forgive if 19 the Tar Ponds Agency had not ridiculed community members 20 for their expressed concerns and complaints of 21 naphthalene odour. In fact, this process has been the 22 first time I've seen community members treated 23 respectfully, and I thank the Panel for that. 24 One promise the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency 25 made was to ensure that when the JAG wound down a new
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2397 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 community liaison committee would take its place. It was 2 over a year later that the new CLC was unveiled. It 3 excluded Sierra Club of Canada. 4 Sydney Tar Ponds Agency described the CLC 5 as "a group of people that represent a wide cross-section 6 of the community of Sydney and who have an interest in 7 participating in the planning and implementation of the 8 project." 9 It is, in my experience, unprecedented in 10 the history of community consultation in Canada that the 11 most consistent voice pressing for cleanup and protection 12 of the health of residents and the local environment 13 would be excluded from the public consultation process. 14 It does not bode well for transparency in 15 any future review of final design plans that the 16 project's most engaged watchdog group will not be allowed 17 in the room. 18 Respectfully, the inadequate approach to 19 community consultation of the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency 20 should be of concern to the Panel. Your role is crucial. 21 The recommendations to the governments must take into 22 account that the Proponent has not established any trust 23 with many key stakeholders. 24 I turn now to the nature of health risk 25 assessment. As evidence since April 29th, 2006 -- excuse
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2398 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 the typo -- and the Environmental Impact Statement has 2 demonstrated, the question of impact on human health is 3 entirely reliant on the adequacy of health risk 4 assessment. 5 Health risk assessment is a relatively new 6 approach in environmental management. Only in the last 7 decade or so has health risk assessment come to become a 8 tool in decision-making. 9 As was forcefully pointed out by community 10 resident Eric Brophy in his questioning on May 2nd, there 11 is a significant difference between a risk assessment and 12 a health assessment. The EIS called for a health 13 assessment. None has been performed. 14 As Mr. Brophy stressed, the ATSDR 15 definitions make it clear that a health assessment is 16 based on actually looking at the current state of health 17 of the community, creating a baseline and specifically 18 "addressing community health concerns." A health risk 19 assessment does not. 20 Sierra Club of Canada submits that HRA is 21 only a weak predictor of health outcomes. It seems over 22 many studies in many communities that the HRA 23 hypothetical modelled receptor is always fine, when in 24 the same population epidemiological studies find 25 statistically significant increased risk of disease in
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2399 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 real people. 2 Had HRA been applied to banning lead in 3 gasoline, lead would still be in gasoline. All the 4 models used at the time demonstrated that lead levels in 5 ambient air could do no harm to children. Only 6 epidemiological studies establishing a drop in IQ over 7 the whole population led to the banning of lead. 8 In the case of the health risk assessment 9 in Sydney the experience is not reassuring. For example, 10 the 1998 CANTOX study as to the potential health effects 11 of the contamination found along Frederick Street 12 concluded that "no measurable health effects in local 13 residents are predicted to result from long term exposure 14 to chemicals in the Frederick Street neighbourhood." 15 The Provincial Government decided to 16 relocate residents on the grounds of compassion, despite 17 the CANTOX advice. Three years later a larger health 18 risk assessment was undertaken over a larger area 19 described as "North of Coke Ovens," or "NOCO." Frederick 20 Street was included. 21 The analysis included more extensive soil 22 sampling. Not only did the second risk assessment 23 dramatically differ from the 1998 CANTOX HRA in 24 determining that there was a chronic health risk on 25 Frederick Street, it determined there was an acute health
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2400 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 risk in one site on Frederick Street due to quite 2 astronomical arsenic levels. 3 Even though no one lived there any longer, 4 the high levels of arsenic led to a recommendation for 5 specific action on that site. This was the very same 6 area earlier assessed by CANTOX and confidently reported, 7 with an abundance of conservation assumptions built into 8 the modelling, that there were no measurable health 9 effects predicated. 10 Moreover, the JDAC HRA concluded that 11 residents were not exposed to an undue risk in their 12 homes but only if they practised extreme habits of 13 constant cleaning. No boots and shoes were to be worn in 14 the house, pets were not to be allowed to track in dirt 15 and mud, homes should be swept and dusted daily. 16 Due to the public relations efforts of the 17 Proponents, all the public remembers is that the 18 neighbourhoods are "safe." The assumptions made and 19 recommended actions required to meet the risk assessment 20 modeller's requirements of cleanliness are forgotten. 21 HRA is only capable of modelling what data 22 exists bounded by a wide variety of assumptions. 23 Ignoring a reality-based health assessment creating 24 baseline data to create a real picture of community 25 health and relying instead on computer modelling of
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2401 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 hypothetical receptors is inherently risky. It should be 2 tested against real-life health experience, baseline 3 information and a precautionary approach. 4 The British Society for Ecological 5 Medicine identified this flaw in risk assessment 6 methodology in a report we have already submitted to the 7 Panel, "Health Effects of Waste Incinerators," December 8 2005. Just to quote this excerpt into the record: 9 "There are a host of problems with 10 this type of assessment, lack of 11 accurate data on pollutants, lack of 12 toxicological data on the majority of 13 chemicals, the fact that an 14 increasing proportion of people react 15 to low levels of chemicals, the fact 16 that in the real world pollutants 17 come in mixtures and can have 18 damaging synergistic effects, the 19 fact that the foetus and breast-fed 20 baby take in 50 times more pollutants 21 than adults relative to their weight 22 and that there is virtually no 23 toxicological data on the effect of 24 these pollutants on either the foetus 25 or the baby. Further problems are
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2402 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 that many pollutants have no safe 2 thresholds, so there can be no safe 3 level. Indeed, some pollutants are 4 more dangerous at low concentrations 5 than high. In fact, it is impossible 6 to assess risk when the toxic effects 7 of 88 to 90 percent of the chemicals 8 and pollutants are unknown, 9 particularly in relevance to birth 10 and developmental defects. This type 11 of assessment contains a value 12 judgment about what is an acceptable 13 level of risk. Risk assessment 14 usually involves modelling..." 15 And I'll move through this more quickly 16 and not quote the whole thing, pointing out that their 17 modelling has a 30 percent confidence level. 18 "This means this technique has only a 19 30 percent chance of accurately 20 predicting the ground concentration 21 of pollutants. Modelling produces 22 the illusion of a scientific 23 knowledge and a certainty that is 24 entirely unjustified, as modelling 25 itself is imprecise and it is based
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2403 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 on substantial scientific uncertainty 2 and limited scientific data." 3 These risk assessments have almost always 4 included that incinerators are safe, which flies in the 5 face of epidemiological data which shows the opposite. 6 We urge this Panel to instruct the 7 Proponent to complete the requirement for a health study 8 and not allow the hypothetical risk model to replace the 9 real-life risk. 10 Continuing with our presentation, we will 11 be hearing from Dr. Tim Lambert, whom I've briefly 12 described in his credentials, followed by -- we'll be 13 then hearing from Dr. Neil Carman to my right and Dr. 14 Paul Connett. 15 On Monday evening our expert, Dr. G. Fred 16 Lee, will present evidence as to why the solidification 17 and stabilization plan is completely inadequate for this 18 site. Dr. Lee has a PhD in environmental engineering 19 from Harvard University and is a leading authority on 20 stabilization and solidification. 21 Sierra Club of Canada continues to press 22 for a speedy cleanup. Advanced technologies exist to 23 restore the area as a functioning watershed and estuary. 24 Information presented by alternative technology companies 25 contradicts the exaggerated cost estimates of the
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2404 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 Proponent. 2 Evidence in this hearing is that the sole 3 criterion by which alternative technologies were rejected 4 was cost. The cost estimates of the STPA have not been 5 explained satisfactorily in this hearing, notwithstanding 6 the most recent undertaking. 7 Considering the critical nature of the 8 decision to pursue a combination of incineration, 9 stabilization, solidification and bioremediation in 10 preference to the technologies preferred by the 11 community, it is unacceptable in the extreme that the 12 sole criterion was a cost estimate prepared in an 13 arbitrary and highly non-transparent manner. 14 We urge the Panel to ensure this Joint 15 Review remedies the inadequacies of the Sydney Tar Ponds 16 Agency approach by recommending that the adjacent 17 neighbourhoods receive remediation, the health of 18 neighbours is protected, in some cases by relocation, 19 that the entire estuary receives remediation, including 20 the sediments under the slag, and that the technologies 21 chosen function to remove and eliminate contamination. 22 Any successful economic future use of the 23 site is enhanced when the area has been effectively 24 remediated. Ongoing management of a toxic waste concrete 25 mass in the middle of town is not a cleanup even if it
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2405 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 performs to the highest expectations of the Proponent. 2 As expert evidence will suggest, there are 3 grave doubts that the proposed plan can function to 4 specifications. As such, the threat to local health and 5 the environment could continue for decades. 6 I'd like to turn it to Dr. Lambert. 7 ------------------------------------- 8 --- PRESENTATION BY SIERRA CLUB OF CANADA 9 (DR. TIM LAMBERT) 10 DR. LAMBERT: Thank you very much for 11 inviting me here, panel review. 12 Before I begin, I'd like to let you know 13 I've been working in the community for about 4 years. 14 I've personally interviewed 50 families living in all 15 three communities around the site, and I've talked to 16 countless others while doing soil samples. I've 17 collected over 100 soil sample in different yards, and 18 talked to people at length. 19 And just a comment on the words "Sydney 20 Tar Ponds." To the communities around this -- people 21 around this community, the Sydney Tar Ponds doesn't mean 22 the tar ponds, it means the whole thing, and there's a 23 big communication gap with people, what they're thinking 24 and what we're thinking in here when we say tar ponds, to 25 understand that difference.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2406 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 The second thing I'd like to just 2 emphasize is the hearing is being held here in the north 3 end, and, for people in Whitney Pier, it might as well be 4 in Halifax, because it's part of the cultural mosaic here 5 that Whitney Pier is different than Sydney, and it's an 6 important thing to bear in mind. 7 And so with that I'd just like to get into 8 some of my presentation. 9 The first slide, and it doesn't look like 10 you can see it that well, but it's a picture of the site, 11 the Sydney Site Plan in 1902, and what I'd like to point 12 out here, here's the steel plant complex here, and you 13 can see the Muggah Creek Estuary is a very wide flowing 14 tidal estuary and channel. 15 And so, as that plant started operating, 16 the tar sludge would come down in here. 17 As soon as the plant operated, they 18 constructed a weir here, so this appears to be the 19 designed settling pond, and it flowed out of there. So 20 this whole area would become where the tar was flowing, 21 as has been demonstrated. 22 The second thing I'd like to point out 23 immediately is there's no residential communities planned 24 right there in 1902 in the Sydney plan, and I believe 25 this should be the base map for you to consider
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2407 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 everything else forward on what to do in cleaning up the 2 area. 3 Oh, I've never -- I'm liable to shoot 4 myself in the eye with this, I've never used one! 5 So then I'd like to show you -- I went the 6 wrong way. 7 This photograph here is from the 1930s, 8 about 1934, and so right away you can see immediately the 9 slag has started to fill in here, and you can see all the 10 tar in here is flowing. It's not static, it's just 11 flowing like crazy. 12 So it would already have been going in 13 here, and they filled up this area here, and they started 14 putting slag in here, so you can see the estuary. 15 There's the original line right there. So they started 16 dumping the slag by 1930. 17 So underneath this slag we know we already 18 have a mixture of tars and slag, and also this area here 19 would, you know, be filling with a little bit more tar, 20 because the slag would probably create a little bit of a 21 barrier, but not much. 22 So you can see that it's a sort of moving 23 target on what the boundary is. 24 And then this aerial photograph is from 25 the 1960s, and now you can see the slag has moved -- you
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2408 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 can see the thinning down right here, and you can still 2 see -- look at all that's moving, you see all the veins 3 in there, this stuff is flowing. It's not a static 4 thing, and it's flowing along, and you can see now 5 there's more slag. 6 You can still see the original boundary 7 and the contamination would be all in here, as well. So 8 this whole area is flowing into the harbour of the tar. 9 And that's what we're here to prevent to do because 10 Health Canada, Environment Canada, Fisheries & Forests, 11 show that the harbour is sick. 12 So in 1990, Acres, they investigated the 13 site, and they said the slag is very porous, the tidal 14 estuary would flow right through the slag. 15 I brought a couple of pieces of slag for 16 you, and you can see -- and this is actually from Sydney 17 Mines, because I didn't go on the site. 18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me. Anything 19 that you're going to present, please don't bring it to 20 the panel table. Afterwards, you can give that to the 21 secretariat. I'm sorry, but --- 22 DR. LAMBERT: I have one more 23 demonstration that I'm going to do which requires a 24 flashlight, and you to look to see something, if I may -- 25 actually a very important piece.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2409 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 Anyways, you can go on, and then we hear 2 from Acres 1990 the lateral displacement of the tar pond 3 materials, and the dumping of fill, is thought not to 4 occur. So the sediment underneath the slag is still 5 contaminated, staying there, and they've said the 6 contaminated sediment underlying the area potentially 7 extends under the entire slag down to the steel complex. 8 So in 1987, Acres evaluated the PCBs in 9 the community, and they had random sampling, so they did 10 not use a grid sampling. The highest concentration was 9 11 ppm PCBs. 12 And so here's their sampling points, and 13 you can see them everywhere, and one thing, as you can 14 see in this area here, they've got a lot of sample in 15 that area, and that's become, as we'll see, an important 16 area. 17 And then the same thing in here they've 18 got a lot of samples in that area. So the highest 19 concentration they saw was 9 ppm of PCBs. 20 So in 1992, there was a change in the 21 concept of what they were going to do, because they were 22 planning on burning everything in the tar ponds. And 23 they decided then, well, if there's any PCBs in the tar 24 ponds, and it's over 50 ppm, you can't burn it. 25 So this created a new sampling looking for
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2410 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 PCBs greater than 50 ppm. And so they found a large 2 hotspot of PCBs in the south pond when they conducted 3 grid sampling. 4 And so you can see the part here that they 5 found was in this area here, and you can see the data 6 points. They only did the grid sampling in this small 7 part of the tar pond, of the south pond. 8 So this whole area here, there's been no 9 grid sampling all the way along here, that's the south 10 pond, and there's no grid sampling. You just see the odd 11 little points everywhere. There's no grid sampling 12 there. And that's what's necessary to understand what's 13 in the actual tar ponds. 14 So in 1996, JWEL-IT conducted a further 15 round of sampling, and now they found a large hot spot of 16 50 ppm PCBs in the north pond, and this is called hotspot 17 5. 18 This is the same area as Acres' 1990 19 sampling in the north pond, and so identified a greater 20 than 50 ppm PCBs in the south pond outside that grid 21 area. So it was that area that I showed you there. 22 And so you can see this here, this area 23 right here, they found a -- this is the big hotspot, and 24 if you go back to that Acres thing, you'll notice that 25 they sampled in here extensively, the highest
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2411 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 concentration was 9. They even got low numbers, and now 2 this is one of our biggest PCB hot pots. 3 Likewise, you can see down in this area 4 they found PCB hotspots over 50 ppm when, before, they 5 said there was nothing there, and there was also another 6 new spot over here by the Coke Oven Brook. 7 And so you can -- from that, you can see 8 the importance of having a proper delineation with grid 9 sampling, and it's actually standard routine for any 10 contaminated site when you're going to do remediation. 11 So JWEL-IT, in their report they 12 recommended further delineation of the horizontal and 13 vertical extent of PCB contamination in the north and 14 south pond, and they said we need to -- the land root 15 extent of PCB contamination has never been established. 16 So they have not finished, and I'd like to 17 note that the contamination hotspot 5 extends right into 18 the slag pile, and so it's a big issue of where are all 19 the PCBs. 20 So we've seen the slag and the tar has 21 been dumped simultaneously in the ponds, and has created 22 this issue of this mixture in the whole tidal estuary. 23 So JDAC 2001, they did the phase III on 24 the tar ponds, which is the primary report that's being 25 relied on for the remediation now, and there was no
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2412 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 additional grid sampling conducted. 2 They conducted vertical and horizontal PCB 3 analysis of hotspot 5, and that's that big hotspot in the 4 north end, and they confirmed the JWEL-IT 1996 hotspots. 5 And the south pond, there was no additional grid sampling 6 conducted. 7 So the same uncertainty with respect to 8 the PCBs in the tar ponds remains from the very initial 9 report to date. So there still has not been any rigorous 10 grid sampling conducted in the tar ponds. 11 And so I've just outlined a few of the PCB 12 uncertainties. The entire ponds have been subject to -- 13 not been subject to rigorous and horizontal and vertical 14 grid sampling. 15 Acres' original data showed the entire tar 16 ponds were contaminated with low level of PCBs, so 17 there's this potential for the presence of PCBs in all 18 parts of the tar ponds. These PCBs will not be removed, 19 and are therefore a potential future source for migration 20 into the harbour. 21 The PCB migration under the slag pile, and 22 PCBs under slag from dumping prior to the current slag 23 boundary, has not been assessed or addressed, and we have 24 this remaining question of how many and how big are 25 remaining PCB hotspots in the community.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2413 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 So the EIS deficiencies with respect to 2 this aspect is, the EIS does not consider the entire tar 3 ponds, the Muggah Creek Estuary boundary defined in the 4 1902 map -- the EIS does not consider stopping the 5 migration of all contamination from Muggah Creek Estuary 6 under the slag. 7 What if the stabilization and 8 solidification process fails? We'll have a further 9 loading and then, more importantly, how do we clean up 10 the S/S mess, if it fails. What are the costs. And so 11 there's no contingency plan developed, even given the 12 uncertainty that this S/S system may potentially fail. 13 With respect to the Coke Ovens site, I'll 14 just talk briefly about that site. 15 JDAC 2002, they recommended: 16 "The remediation actions should be 17 limited to those that would be 18 focused on, supportive of, and 19 consistent with the future land use 20 to be designated. For each distinct 21 area of the site on a global basis, 22 remediation should not be undertaken 23 until future land uses are selected." 24 And that's the recommendation which we 25 have.
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2414 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 And so, to date, we have no defined land 2 use on that area of the site. The main remediation plan 3 addresses just superficial soils. This does not support 4 any land use, in my view. 5 Further remedial action will be required 6 to support any servicing of structures, or, if you're 7 going to put in a building, you have to have piles, and 8 they will go down at some depth to support buildings. 9 So light industrial and recreational land 10 use, which are discussed, are generally considered 11 incompatible land uses, and what you create there is 12 these industrial public interfaces, which most land use 13 planning is trying to get rid of these types of 14 interfaces, and even the historic Sydney land use 15 planning is trying to deal with that, and remove these 16 interfaces that have been created in the community. 17 So the question then becomes as well, now, 18 the land farming. What's the point of doing land farming 19 if we're going to spend money building a cap on top of 20 that land anyways. So a major EIS deficiency. 21 A second thing that I have is the location 22 of the proposed undertaking and the nature of the 23 sensitivity of the surrounding area. 24 This has not been addressed adequately, 25 neither the temporal and spacial boundaries of the study
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2415 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 areas, and it's this latter one which I consider the 2 continuous contamination, especially into the community. 3 So with respect to contamination outside 4 these arbitrary boundaries that have been established, 5 it's my view that the data that's been presented by JDAC 6 in 2001, the Tar Ponds Report, the JDAC 2001 NOCO Report, 7 the Health Canada Property Reports, the published paper 8 that I have conducted in the community on soil sampling, 9 and the unpublished data, which I also provided as a 10 submission to the panel with my material, all of those 11 results in all of those studies are fairly similar. 12 So I don't think we have any disagreement 13 between the various parties on what the levels are in the 14 soils in the community. So that's something that I don't 15 think we need to worry about arguing about. And the 16 soils exceed the CCME guidelines for metals, PHs and many 17 other contaminants. 18 So I think those are all established 19 facts, so I'll just go through a little bit of where the 20 sampling that I've done, and the area that we need to 21 focus on. 22 And so the key thing that I've looked at 23 is comparing the three communities around the site, and 24 you can see we have the so-called NOCO area in the red, 25 and then the other parts of Whitney Pier in the orange,
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2416 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 the blue is the Ashby area, and the yellow is the north 2 pond. And so the fundamental question that I was 3 addressing when I came here was, is this NOCO area really 4 different than the other areas. 5 And so all the work that I've done, to 6 date, suggests there's no difference between these 7 communities. They're all very similarly contaminated, 8 and that's the same as the results that you'll see in the 9 reports that have been produced. 10 So this is a graph which shows the 11 background soil arsenic, and the soil arsenic in the tar 12 ponds. 13 So a key thing to notice here is you can 14 see, right here -- I can't actually see the slide from 15 back here because I'm kind of a little bit blind -- so 16 right in here you can see all of the soil in the 17 background soil sampling, and this background soil 18 sampling was conducted for the Tar Ponds Agency by Fraser 19 and Small, all of it here is all grouped here, 80 percent 20 of it is right here, is primarily less than 10 and the 21 mean is 9. 22 And I sampled underneath a house in Ashby, 23 one of the 100-year-old houses. So you can go underneath 24 the house, and it would not have been subject to the air 25 pollution, and for arsenic I got a value of 2 under the
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2417 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 house. I've got a bunch of other soils that I don't have 2 the results, but I can forward to you those in the 3 future. 4 And then if you look at the Tar Ponds soil 5 -- you can see that this area, it's gone. So it's all 6 contaminated and you only have, you know, roughly 12 7 percent of the soil in all those communities looks like 8 this soil here, like the background soil and the 9 interesting thing about that is the -- with some of my 10 samples you hit what I would call fill and so some of the 11 results are actually not representative of the historic 12 air pollution because you've hit some fill material. And 13 I haven't excluded those from the results but they would 14 be -- account for some of the soil here. 15 So a big difference that you see here, the 16 average soil in the communities is 67 parts per million. 17 In the background it's nine and we have our guideline 18 here of 12. So quite clearly the community is already 19 impacted with respect to arsenic. And so any further 20 loading of arsenic, the cup is full so to speak. And 21 there's no more room for loading of arsenic into the 22 community which may happen with future by leaving, you 23 know, contamination there and potential contamination 24 coming off the site. 25 We could -- can I get the next one,
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2418 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 Elizabeth. This one here now is with respect to lead in 2 the community. And so here's your background. And this 3 is the same data set by Fraser & Small again. And you 4 can see all of it, like over 85 percent, 90 percent is 5 below 100. And you see -- this black line is hard to see 6 but the bell curve here goes straight up almost to the 7 axis there so you can see that really a lot of the soil, 8 the background soil before they built any of the steel 9 plant or the Coke Ovens was actually very good with 10 respect to background lead. So the mean value here was 11 44 parts per million, well below the Canadian guidelines 12 of 140. 13 So this represents really what the site 14 should be compared against. That's what the soil looked 15 like before any of the impacts. Now, if you look again 16 over here on the same it's -- you can see the frequency 17 here. There's only 12 percent of the soil left that 18 looks anything like what it originally did. And again 19 some of this 12 percent is dominated by places where I've 20 hit fill in the community. And when you look at the 21 aerial photographs you can see as the sites developed and 22 where homes are, especially Victoria Road, the -- you've 23 got the first row of houses and then the second row of 24 houses was built in the late 50's and those samples 25 there, the lead and arsenic actually was quite low
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2419 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 because it's all fill material. 2 So it only experienced, you know, 30 years 3 of atmospheric deposition of the pollution. But -- so 4 you can see the bulk of the soil, though, has been 5 impacted and here it is here and there's your bell curve 6 right there. And our mean is 388, very close to 400 7 parts per million which the USEPA says that's -- it's a 8 hazard in soil. So it's a -- and where versus our 9 Canadian guideline of 140. So it's significantly 10 impacted and the same thing with respect to -- I said 11 with arsenic there's no more room to deposit more lead 12 into the community from these sites during remediation or 13 otherwise. The cup is full again with respect to that 14 and this soil needs to be remediated. 15 I couldn't get the overhead that I 16 provided in my submission with respect to the PAH's. So 17 this is just the benzoate pyrene numbers and in the 18 submission I have you the total toxic equivalency for 19 benzoate pyrene in my unpublished data. Now this soil 20 here, you can see this is the background for benzoate 21 pyrene. All of it is -- over 80 percent here is all -- 22 there's all -- there's no PAHs and that's what we would 23 expect because PAHs are the product of combustion. So 24 before the virgin soil, there's no PAHs. And now this 25 soil here actually represents the whole of Sydney. It's
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2420 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 not just the communities around the Tar Ponds, like the 2 other one. This stuff goes all the way out to the 3 highway south of Sydney, you know, the Ring Road. 4 So some of the stuff here, even still 5 though, so some of this soil here is dominated by 6 material that's far away from the site and in closer to 7 the site is where you see all these higher levels of soil 8 that are surrounding in the communities. And this is 9 very similar to the data that I believe Health Canada has 10 in their property reports. And we can see, compared to 11 background, compared to the mean, and that's even looking 12 at all of Sydney, you've got a significant increase in 13 the amount of benzoate pyrene. And that use to be 14 considered the most toxic of the PAHs and it's what 15 Percival Potts showed, the very first carcinogen with the 16 boys that were the chimney sweeps, they got scrotum 17 Cancer. 18 So we've known about this for 100 years. 19 As part of the study that I handed in as well, we've 20 shown that the contamination, the lead and arsenic is 21 moving into the house. And this is of fundamental 22 importance for children because children's primary 23 exposure route is from dust off the floor. So the little 24 -- I'm talking about little kids, one years old, 25 toddlers. They're going to be crawling around in the
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2421 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 floor space in the house and they're going to be exposed 2 to lead and arsenic in that soil. 3 And I -- the risk for children in this 4 soil, it's not a super high risk but it's there and it's 5 about one to 15 percent chance of having high blood lead 6 from that and you also have the potential for pica events 7 from the children playing in the soil and eating more of 8 it. And I've worked through all of this data that I have 9 with Bruce Lanphear. And he's the most prominent lead 10 expert in the world right now as far as I know and he's 11 corroborated this and you'll see on the paper he's listed 12 as an acknowledgement and been over all of this data so 13 it's been subject to significant peer review. 14 Now I'm just going to talk about the JDAC 15 Phase II, two thousand and --- 16 THE CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Lambert, I'm just 17 going to ask you -- I appreciate -- no, could you -- you 18 don't need to come close, I just -- I appreciate the fact 19 that when you've got the graphs that you said that you 20 can't see them from a distance but when you don't have a 21 graph I would prefer if you would present from the --- 22 DR. LAMBERT: Oh, sure. 23 THE CHAIRPERSON: --- witness table, 24 please. 25 DR. LAMBERT: So the -- I can read it off
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2422 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 my screen here so -- the -- anyways the JDAC report has 2 shown on the north shoreline beside the Tar Ponds, that's 3 on the western side in Northend, they've identified in 4 the soils there the same contamination which I've been 5 discussing now in their report. So they've got -- the 6 metals are above the CCME guidelines and there's one soil 7 sample of -- in the south shoreline they have one soil 8 sample and exceeded for arsenic and benzoate pyrene. And 9 they also had groundwater exceedances. 10 So this is very similar to the results of 11 my work. And in addition in the -- right along the Tar 12 Ponds there, I've gone under a house there as well and 13 talked to the residents and it was subjected to 14 historical flooding in that area. And you see PAHs under 15 the house and lead and arsenic contamination which is 16 rather high, above CCME guidelines. And so you can see 17 the historic impact of the flooding that's come up and 18 brought some of that material underneath the house. 19 And this is similar to -- also to Health 20 Canada's results, their property reports. North of the 21 Coke Ovens area, the JDAC 2001 report, they've said the 22 soils in that area exceed the CCME criteria for metals, 23 TPH -- that's that Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons -- and 24 PAHs. Health Canada property reports have presented 25 contaminants that exceed the CCME soil guidelines as
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2423 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 well. They've also identified that contamination is 2 present in the sumps in these homes. And observed gross 3 contamination in the basements. And so I've got a couple 4 of photographs here of gross contamination in some 5 basements. 6 So you can see one and it's hard to see 7 but right in here you can see the orange staining there 8 and I've sampled this area as has Health Canada and this 9 area here is contaminated with high levels of arsenic. 10 And then I've got another picture here of myself taking a 11 soil sample and I've put this slide up there so you can 12 see that I'm -- what I'm sampling is sludge. And I'm 13 sampling it with a plastic spoon. And so you can see my 14 hand there with my glove and there's my plastic spoon. 15 So it's -- you don't -- it's thick in the community and 16 we've analyzed this stuff under a microscope and it 17 appears like it's a coke fine so there's been migration 18 perhaps coming off the site from the Coke Ovens area, 19 along with some type of, either there's a heat that's 20 moving that way or fractures in the bedrock that's 21 turning this contamination towards the communities. 22 Now, this is a comment on the North Sydney 23 data set by Maritime Environmental. And they are the 24 ones who produced the statistics. And they said: 25 "The reader is warned that this
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2424 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 statistical analysis was carried out 2 specifically to support the human 3 health risk assessment of the no-go 4 area. In particular no spacial 5 analysis was carried out." 6 And I read this and it, you know, it took 7 me -- I didn't understand it for a long time and I 8 wondered what is this warning. And so I spent a whole 9 day up in North Sydney driving around looking at their 10 data points. And you can see that all the data points -- 11 here's the train line right here. There's the train line 12 right there and so all of their data points in that area 13 are just following along the train line. And so I just 14 used a pencil and I took this grid right here and that's 15 roughly 250 metres and so you see there's sampling that's 16 following. 17 They have a point there and a point there 18 and one point there. Those are the only ones that are 19 not along the train line. Another thing that you need to 20 know is that there's a steel foundry right here. And so 21 I -- and so this would be producing a point source of 22 emissions onto these homes here as well. And I -- with 23 your permission could I -- I forget to scan in an air 24 photograph and I'd like to show it you of the -- if I can 25 just put the book up there, you can see the -- or I'll
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2425 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 give it on the side there, I guess as I'm -- I can tell 2 you're going there but --- 3 THE CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm sorry, Dr. 4 Lambert we have -- the way -- anything that's presented 5 has to be done in a public way. 6 DR. LAMBERT: Yeah. 7 THE CHAIRPERSON: So if there's something 8 that you want to file that would be fine. 9 DR. LAMBERT: Sure. So I'd just like to 10 make a couple of more comments on this, is that -- so 11 11 to 15 samples were collected within 250 metres of the 12 rail line, there's one that's just outside of 250 metres 13 so you could probably say it's 12. Now the whole 14 southern portion of the rail line and it's this area 15 here, right in here, is actually in a deep crevice about 16 20, 30 feet deep in here. And so you can see -- so 17 that's what I'm talking about here, the rail line is 20 18 feet below grade so the plume would just actually be 19 coming right out onto the community in that area. So 20 there's actually no stack height release from the train 21 at that point. 22 And then the northern portion of the 23 sample area is subject to the point source emissions of 24 the Angel Steel Foundry and that steel foundry is right 25 up in here. And right over here they had a -- there's a
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2426 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 huge woodworking facility here. So none of this is -- 2 these soil samples are clearly not representative of 3 North Sydney. They're representative of houses living 4 along a 150 year old rail line. And so it's not really 5 an urban reference area at all. 6 And I'd like to make a note that in my 7 paper if you look at the soil samplings results, we 8 compared it to Ontario's urban reference area and Sydney 9 was quite clearly below the urban reference area that was 10 developed by Ontario. This last thing is -- one area I 11 was going to talk about is local knowledge. And I 12 understand you're very interested in local knowledge. 13 And I've got a paper impressed with a science of the 14 total environment and I think quite clearly everybody in 15 Sydney knows that the Coke and steel plant emissions 16 adversely affected the community. There's -- you can -- 17 there's countless stories that people have. 18 And I'm not really sure how to do this 19 next part but the children talk about the sparkles on 20 their face and, well, I brought a flashlight and a little 21 bit of soil and if you shine the flashlight on it, you 22 can see all the -- you can actually see it with the naked 23 eye and even if you go into the communities, like in -- 24 especially north of steel plant there you'll see all 25 these shiny sparkles in the ground so I'm not sure what
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2427 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 you want to do, because I wanted to shine the flashlight 2 and I could show you the -- you can just see the sparkles 3 glow like -- it's quite brilliant and you'd think Judy 4 Garland was in the room. But perhaps we'll have to do 5 that later. 6 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm happy to take your 7 word that when you shine the flashlight we see sparkles. 8 DR. LAMBERT: Yeah, and the other thing 9 I'd like to note is a lot of people in the community are 10 saying it smells like rotten eggs. And you can ask the 11 public when they come up. And what's interesting is, 12 this was produced during the coking operation. And 13 there's no air monitoring data for this -- for the 14 hydrogen sulfide that was released during coking. But 15 Chaquette[?] in his analysis -- he's the Environment 16 Canada person -- he talked theoretically about the 17 release of hydrogen sulfide in the community but the 18 local knowledge substantiates this release of hydrogen 19 sulfide in all three communities. 20 And it's very well established and we did 21 this, both with respect to a door-to-door survey and then 22 also I did personal interviews with 50 families, 23 documenting what their experiences were. And that's -- 24 I've put that paper in the attachments that I've given 25 you as well. It's very powerful evidence and it's -- I'm
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2428 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 -- the next thing -- this next slide here, I forgot to 2 put it in my submission so I can provide you the 3 overheads in my brief submission but this is part of our 4 door-to-door survey that we conducted and so the study 5 group here, this is the internal comparison group and 6 this is the resident group. 7 These people here are people that have 8 moved into the community around the Tar Ponds sites and 9 this is the resident group, that people have lived there. 10 So you can see that 70 percent of the people, or 71 11 families that moved in around the site are making less 12 than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) a year. So 13 what's happening is this community is becoming more and 14 more impoverished and you have to ask yourself, who's 15 moving beside the Sydney Tar Ponds. And it's people who 16 do not have the ability to seek residential dwellings 17 elsewhere. It's very important also for understanding 18 the socio-economic development of Sydney as a community 19 of what's going on here. 20 And whereas you look at with the resident 21 group, you know, you have 60 percent below so you can -- 22 and 40 percent above 25,000 compared to here, you have 28 23 so quite clearly the community is changing. And it's 24 moving more and more towards a poor community. And a 25 large reason for that is the fact -- in my view, the fact
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2429 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 that if the community's are contaminated then people 2 would choose to live elsewhere. Those people that are 3 moving in the communities do not have a choice and it's a 4 key thing with respect to the concept of environmental 5 justice which is at play here in Sydney and which I 6 really hope you address in your recommendations to the 7 government. 8 So, the historical data of showing an 9 impact on the community, Morris Katz from Health Canada 10 documented the pollution in the community from 1956 to 11 1965 and then I'm not sure where he went, but Morris Katz 12 was really well ahead of his time. It was in response to 13 local knowledge. 14 The community started complaining when 15 they switched the ore to Wadman ore in 1954/'55 and they 16 said, you know, "The pollution is way worse now," and in 17 response to the community's local knowledge Morris Katz 18 initiated the air sampling in Sydney, and that's how it 19 began. He was 60 years ahead of his time. 20 And so it's very interesting, and I'm 21 going to show you a picture of his data from 1958 in a 22 second, which I forgot to put in my submission but you 23 can have it here. 24 And this other paper is by Atwell from 25 Environment Canada and he documented with air monitoring
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2430 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 the PAHs coming into the community from the Coke Ovens 2 Site, and he sampled for two years on either side of the 3 Coke Ovens Site. 4 So, here's an isopleth of Morris Katz, and 5 I'll try and do it from here. I can't really see, but 6 you can see -- this is the plant site here and these are 7 his deposition levels and you can see -- look at this 8 line here, the whole community is impacted there. 9 Those are his outside sampling points and 10 then you get increasing deposition in the community in 11 this area here, in Whitney Pier. But you can see it 12 clearly affects North End and it clearly affects Ashby, 13 and the soil sampling that I've conducted to date clearly 14 establishes that as well. 15 And this is a comment from Mr. Hickman 16 from Health Canada and Welfare, 1973, and he's speaking - 17 - he says -- or, sorry, that was '83. Sorry about that. 18 I made a typo on the slide. 19 "Although the degree of risk to the 20 general population residing in the 21 vicinity of the plant is difficult to 22 determine without further evaluation, 23 it would appear that some finite 24 increase in the risk of cancer exists 25 from the uncontrolled Coke Oven
Drake Recording Services Limited – Certified Court Reporters (Serving Atlantic Canada Since 1983)
2431 Sierra Club of Canada (Presentation) 1 emissions into the community." 2 Now, here's -- I want to -- I want to put 3 this with public health sensitivities. It was something 4 that was supposed to be done as part of the EIS, and so 5 there's a whole history and there's a lot more reports 6 than this documenting the health impacts in the community 7 from this exposure, beginning with Health Canada showing 8 the increase in mortality from cancer, Judy Guernsey from 9 Dalhousie University showing the increase in cancer 10 incidents and then Dodds in 2001, increased congenital 11 anomalies. 12 The interesting thing about Dodds' study 13 is it actually takes place after the plant closed down, 14 so it's perhaps reflective of the existing contamination 15 in the communities. 16 This is a comment from Sales in 1960: 17 "Just from commonsense, it is held 18 when this area is cleared it has no 19 economic reuse because 20 topographically the locality is low- 21 lying and because it is subject to 22 the full impact of the injurious 23 effects of the steel mills." 24 And notice he