Hello Dan:
I offer [ below ] some comments to Mayor Morgan's e-mail he had
forwarded to all JAG members via Janet.
Regards, Francis.
P.S.: Janet, can you 'cc' JAG members (e-mail/mail), all Council &
Directors?
-----Original Message-----
From: John W. Morgan
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:49 PM
To: Dan Fraser
Cc: All Council; DIRECTORS; Janet Gnatiuk
Subject: JAG Recommendations
Dan
I appreciate the work put in by the volunteers at the JAG over the last
number of years leading to the Recommendations for cleanup which have
been recently approved by the Round Table and provided to government.
[ Dear John: You have a curious way of showing your appreciation. For
the past few years you have been persistently deriding JAG's efforts at
every opportunity you had in Cape Breton Post/Chronical Herald
interviews. In fact, you seemed rather intent in seeing JAG dismantled
despite a sound support of JAG by a significant portion of Council.
Well, it would appear you have your wish. You also helped kill CBRM's
direct input into the government decision making process and any further
help from JAG into municipal problems (example: the sewer collector
which had been shelved for the past 20 years). I can't say I am very proud
of "your" contributions: you helped carve CBRM's golden goose.].
You may be aware of some significant issues which have arisen recently
in the media and elsewhere with respect to the recommendations. In
particular, there is some dispute about:
a) whether incineration at the SERL incinerator is included or
excluded as an option by the JAG recommendation.
[ As quoted in the motion, on-site incineration is the least favoured
destruction technique. For all practical purpose, the SERL incinerator
is 'on-site' and the level of upgrade it would require makes it non
attractive(except for some provincial parties - such as STPA - who still
delude themselves in thinking it could be used despite its current state and
locale but yet pretend they want to be 'cost effective'.). Bringing in a
'proven' mobile incinerator unit, if ever governments regress to that dubious
option, would cost about 10% of the refurbishing bill. ].
b) whether incineration at the Point Auconi power plant is included or
excluded as an option by the JAG recommendation.
[ Point Aconi is not specifically stated in the 'cleanup' recommendation
perse. Any power plant or cement kiln could be used. Nevertheless, the
RAER did compute the cost for this option based on Point Aconi. This is
a state of the art facility and was confirmed by experts during the
Technology Demonstration Program review, that it could easily meet and
exceed all emission requirements. This facility is also equipped with ultra
sensitive monitoring stations and an outstanding "class 2" landfill for
disposal of residual ashes. It would be an "ideal" disposal site for the
"hydrocarbon" wastes contained on the Site. Mind you, nobody wants anything
done in 'their backyard' and unless a significant education campaign is waged,
neighbouring communities will likely object vehemently due to ignorance
of the nature of the 'pre-treated' wastes that could be disposed of as a
'useful' fuel source. Without JAG though, it's unlikely any such
campaign will go on in the coming year as the Province still thinks the
SERL facility ought to be used. ].
c) whether encapsulation is included or excluded as an acceptable
option (although not preferred) by the JAG recommendation.
[ Again the motion put forward by JAG clearly states that the sampled
community wants a 'destruction' of the Site's wastes. In general, they
want the coking 'hydrocarbon residues' and other wastes disposed off rather
than left behind for future generations to deal with (typically at a much
higher cost). ].
I do not want to prejudge what JAG's position may be on these important
issues; however, it is important that government have an unequivocal
understanding of the JAG's position on these issues. Can you please
ensure that JAG reviews and clarifies these issues as soon as possible.
[ As you partook in the charade to delay the government partners
decision announcement to 'kill JAG' till the last minute, there is no
more opportunity for JAG to officially respond to your query.
Instructions from your CEO and from STPA basically stated that:
CBRM: JAG needs to shut down its operations, prepare to release
its staff (at the least possible cost that labour laws allows), and
dispose of all the files (presumably at some remote location like the
Beaton Institute where few can readily access them nor where no one
would be on hand to explain their meaning.);
STPA: We want community input but
(and don't ask us for any commitment on our part), it must be
'streamlined' and 'cost effective'. This is rather ironical as, if one
omits the much inflated CBRM 'in kind' contribution, JAG costs are much
closer to $300K/year (plus realistic office space cost at CBRM) and not
the $700K advertised by STPA. Do you have any idea of the STPA costs in
comparison? I doubt it, and in fact these are on the increase as they
are most anxious for their crony consultants - who are lobbying
parliament bodies behind the scene {see recent STPA Briefing Note} - to
take over JAG's role as the primary communicator ASAP. It would appear
they would be happy to revive their inadequate incinerator, or to just
bury the whole affair, or better yet:
do nothing and just have to pay for the Kings Road upgrade as recently
quoted in newspapers. Politicians and bureaucrats must be heaving with
envy: JAG has upwards to 85% community support (per the recent Public
Opinion Poll) and that is totally unacceptable (and of course, not 'cost
effective'). Forget about this 'open and transparent' business: it
works too well. Hence: abort on JAG and all its strengths (such as: its
Secretariat that allows volunteers to be effective, to access
information, to question decisions and proposed programs, to critique
reports {before they are finalised} and for "anyone" to actually obtain
an answer on their concerns; abort on the PMC that ensures operations
are conducted in a safe manner; abort on the JAG website where anyone
can access info and actually begin to understand the nature of the
problem. Under your leadership, you propose to have the CBRM take a
'greater' role; maybe set up again a small advisory group of select
counsellors. In case you don't know/remember: déja vue. That's how the
prior cleanup attempts were led to abortion.
I do hope the above sheds some insight on the perception of at least one
JAG member in the hope that you might change your prior stance.
Regards,
Francis Sirois.].
From: Francis Sirois [mailto:f.sirois@ns.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 9:38 PM
To: John W. Morgan; Dan Fraser
Cc: All Council; DIRECTORS; Janet Gnatiuk; Barry McCallum; Germaine
LeMoine; 'Glenn Hanam'; Bev MacDonald; Garth Bangay (EC) Subject: RE: JAG
Recommendations
Hello John:
Did you read the entire JAG motion including the motion "preamble"? The
JAG motion was quite clear on what it recommended its government partners
to do: use co-combustion, which is quite different than incineration,
(options #3 & #4 for each of the Tar Ponds and the Coke Ovens Sites) -
i.e.: that's what JAG deems acceptable per the public input it received.
We hardly need another meeting to rehash the same clear message: clean the
Site up and "use" the co-combustion options.
In the "preamble", it is also stated (just so our partners didn't get
confused or still seek 'unacceptable solutions') that a "permanent
destruction" of the contaminants was a very clear message from the
community. Hence the statement: "The community feels very strongly that
the Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens site remediation should not include capping
and containment except for residual materials."
The other key message was that: " On-site incineration has the least
community support of the destruction technologies ". To me, and I think
for most JAG members that partook in the wording of the "whole motion and
its preamble", it says that no "on-site incineration" is acceptable (and
that inherently includes the mothballed SERL incinerator which was
previously refuted by the community in any case. Unfortunately this
facility has deteriorated and even if the Province were foolish enough to
still try to use this option, it would cost close to $20 M to upgrade it -
a 'proven' mobile unit could be mobilised for less than 10% of that cost.).
The JAG mission statement (see page 1 of the MOA) was "to determine and
implement acceptable solutions for Canada's worst hazardous waste site,
.." . JAG has completed the first leg of its mandate (the recommendation)
and now needs to embark in ensuring the 'implementation' process.
As you may know, only our Federal government partner has shown any
interest in continuing with a 'streamlined' JAG. An 'ad hoc' committee
has been formed so that JAG can submit a proposal for the 'streamlined'
JAG; that effort is in progress. The Province has made it clear it no
longer wants to participate in the JAG venture. OK. The STPA
organisation has become unwieldy and extremely costly. It ought to be
disbanded as it has proven to be a totally redundant use of expensive
resources and frequently pulling in different directions than the rest of
its 'partners'.
The one thing I would like to get back from you (and more importantly from
the full council who appear to support JAG just as strongly as was also
shown in the latest public opinion poll) is whether or not the CBRM wants
to be included in the "streamlined" JAG beyond Sept. 19th? If not, the
only prospect now appears to be a partnership between the Federal
government and a scoped down version of 'bone-fide' organisations and
volunteers. I personally think CBRM ought to be included as 'one' of the
partners, as the Site is in the middle of Sydney (but, if council is
opposed, the CBRM could still partake as a 'bone-fide' organisation in the
'streamline JAG'). We have little time to finalise our "streamlined JAG"
proposal and its urgent council meets to provide a commitment if they want
to be part of the "streamlined JAG" and the decision making process. When
do you think you could advise JAG's chair as to the CBRM stance [we need
to finalise the proposal in early August "at the latest"]?
As for the 'tongue in cheek' comment by Parker Donham - re the cleanup
cost reaching $ 1 Billion - this is a total (and self interested)
fabrication and a 'gross' exaggeration. Public Works and Government
Services Canada had senior staff that reviewed the RAER cost proposals.
No reassessment has been provided to JAG (or any of its partners?) for
such a sudden ballooning of the project costs. I don't think any
negotiations have even begun with NSP with respect to what they would
charge to co-burn the 'hydrocarbon' based pellets from dehydrated and
concentrated sediments/soils after 'soil washing'. A $100/tonne fee was
the base cost used for computing the co-combustion option (which is the
highest figure paid anywhere on this planet).
In reality, a well-engineered blend of options #3 & #4 should cost no more
than $350 Millions for the entire project. Why? The cost estimates for
the Tar Ponds and for the Coke Ovens Site were done separately and as such
significant costs were repeated which will not occur when a combined
solution is engineered. The combined maximum cost of $450 Millions were
calculated from a detailed analysis of 'conservative' costs for all the
hardware and operational costs. After that valuation, those costs were
increased by 30% to cover design changes and overhead management costs.
And to make sure that was 'more than adequate' to cover unforeseen costs,
that inflated cost was further increased by a further 25%. The notion
that taxes or the CEAA process (which is a separate function and quite
likely funded separately) might propel the costs to $1 Billion is
absolutely inane. I really don't think PWGSC came up with any such
number. I'd love to see such an aberration printed on their letterhead
(versus a pseudo leaked press release: à la Parker - an overpaid and part
time 'communications' consultant acting on behalf of ...???).
Regards, Francis.
[P.S.: Janet, can you forward a copy of this e-mail to JAG members & JAG's
mailing list. I presume the 'all Councillors' and 'all Directors' e-mail
will be forwarded accordingly by the CBRM computer system. Thanks.].
From: John W. Morgan
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:42 AM
To: 'Francis Sirois'; Dan Fraser
Cc: All Council; DIRECTORS; Janet Gnatiuk; Barry McCallum; Germaine
LeMoine; 'Glenn Hanam'; Bev MacDonald; Garth Bangay (EC) Subject: RE:
JAG Recommendations
Francis
Importantly, saying a particular cleanup mechanism (such as on-site
incineration) has the " least community support" is not the same as
saying it is "unacceptable" nor does it say it is "acceptable". It is a
nonstatement - it is words without clear actionable meaning on the
fundamental question that led to the establishment of the JAG.
What would it hurt for JAG to provide the type of plain language I am
requesting so that the province does not "misinterpret" specifically
what JAG finds unacceptable and acceptable and so that the municipality
can become an advocate for something specific. From my perspective, I
would be much more supportive of the organization if I could read in the
plain language of the resolution specifically what means and locations
of cleanup are acceptable and unacceptable. Otherwise, the current
vagueness assures the community will engage in repeated divisive debates
as various specific cleanup mechanisms are floated and rejected by community
protest. Protest over every conceivable cleanup mechanism can be expected
with government backing down in the face of the protests until JAG
(not just yourself) says clearly and specifically what is and what is
not acceptable in very plain language.
I will ask Janet to forward this to the members so they are aware of my
concerns.
Mayor John Morgan
From: Francis Sirois [mailto:f.sirois@ns.sympatico.ca]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 11:23 PM
To: John W. Morgan; Dan Fraser
Cc: All Council; DIRECTORS; Janet Gnatiuk; Barry McCallum; Germaine
LeMoine; 'Glenn Hanam'; Bev MacDonald; 'Garth Bangay (EC)' Subject: RE:
JAG Recommendations
Hello again John:
I'm glad you appear to be offering an olive branch (a noteworthy first -
you ought to try it more often with all parties involved.). In re-reading
your message 'again', I appreciate your effort to ensure an acceptable
cleanup effort does occur. You didn't quite respond though to my query
for 'an official' response "to JAG" from the CBRM as to its desire to
partake in the "streamlined JAG" for the 'implementation' phase of the
project (for a period of "two years" till the cleanup actually gets
underway).
If no JAG is present after Sept. 19th 2003, it is most likely the
published cleanup start date of spring 2005 would likely be much delayed,
if it does occur at all. After the date of Sept. 19th 2005, JAG ought to
again be downsized as by then the entire cleanup operation should be
'well' underway. Its role would then be limited to an oversight function
to ensure 'cleanup' targets are actually met. This subsequent role would
then readily meld with the Public Works and Government Services Canada
department role to oversee/manage 'site' cleanups. [Once a site cleanup
actually gets underway, most communities are by then satisfied that the
systems put in place to ensure their safety have shown that they are
working efficiently - example: the Hamilton harbour cleanup, just to
mention one 'community' supported project.].
An additional special Roundtable meeting is not required. One is already
being planned so that JAG can redefine itself (or what it plans to do with
this registered entity prior to the Sept 19th 2003 "cost share agreement"
expiration). I will gladly present a motion to more narrowly define the
scope of the cleanup recommendation (which, and I agree, could be
misconstrued by some parties intent on their own goals, to provide a
leeway for a significantly different approach for the cleanup or an excuse
to do nothing). The "streamlined" JAG has two significant challenges for
the coming two years:
1. Ensure the community 'at large' understands the proposed cleanup
recommendation (what these processes entail, why these are actually
outstanding choices and how they are protective of their health);
2. Ensure the implementation of a combined options #3 & 4 are both
technically optimised and cost effective [To any engineering problem,
there are a multitude of solutions. With community input, a solution that
ensures community concerns are dealt with can readily be designed: JAG's
past performance (with the support of a Secretariat and the PMC function)
has proven that.].
You may not be aware of it, but one of JAG's decision (a number of years
ago), when it looked at the creation of a JAG website (to ensure all
present and future JAG studies were maintained, updated and accessible to
all), was for JAG to transfer the custody of the JAG website to the CBRM
data processing department when JAG was to end/downsize. Following a
number of studies (and an 'ad hoc' committee to examine the short and long
term needs for a 'JAG website'), it was concluded that the CBRM data
processing facilities/department would be the optimum facility to
safeguard the acquired knowledge. I'll skip all the reasons why it was an
unanimous choice of "all" of JAG's partners at the time of the creation of
the JAG website - you can just consult with Joyce (your GIS and computer
system "guru" & manager) and get updated. If she's not available, I'll
gladly provide you with more details.]. The continuity and accessibility
of all the acquired Site's knowledge is just one of the many reasons I
believe the CBRM ought to commit to an active participation in the
"streamlined JAG". JAG has provided the CBRM with significant capital
from our other partners: do "you, as the CBRM mayor" really want to end
that?
It is important "you" and the "CBRM council" officially state and commit
their support for a "streamlined JAG". When can you provide that response
'on behalf of the CBRM'? (You may not appreciate the consequence of the
very limited timetable; an official response from the CBRM to JAG is
required by the first week of August 2003.).
Regards, Francis.
P.S.: Janet, can you forward a copy to JAG members and its mailing list.
Thanks.
