Thursday, May 20, 2010

ELMIRA DRINKING WATER THEN and NOW.
Along time ago in a land far, far away we had excellent drinking water coming from both shallow and deep wells. This was the case in Elmira, Kitchener, Waterloo , Preston, Galt and Hespeler.
In 1989 Elmira lost their south wellfield allegedly solely due to Uniroyal Chemical. By 1990 the north wellfield was contaminated with NDMA and that indeed came primarily from Uniroyal .Interestingly however, to this day we still have a very high offsite readings of NDMA near the old Shirt Factory west of Uniroyal (Chemtura).

What have we in Elmira replaced our contaminated drinking water with? To the best of my knowledge , the new source coming up the pipeline from Waterloo does not have NDMA in it. Well maybe. The Region of Waterloo don't publish in their Annual Report the NDMA results that they obtain. They also don't publish hundreds of other industrial chemicals including extremely common solvents such as Toluene and Xylenes. What they do publish however is Trichloroethylene (TCE), over and over again. The levels in the William St. wells in Waterloo average around 2.6 ppb (parts per billion) over the last few years. This is the same chemical that was featured in the movie starring John Travolta, a Civil Trial. Waterloo water (and Elmira) also has multiple chemicals known as products of disinfection. This includes Trihalomethanes as well as Haloacetic Acids. Earlier on I mentioned Fluoride exceedances in our water. In 2007 and 2008 Fluoride levels hit almost double the standard. In 2006 they hit more than double and in 2004 they almost tripled the standard on one occasion. Thank You Elmira industry (including Chemtura), City of Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo for our fine water. By the way nobody, nowhere has a clue as to the health effects of mixing multiple contaminants in drinking water.
Posted by at

10 comments:

  1. AnonymousMay 27, 2010 at 6:51 PM

    What is the NDMA level in water tested in Elmira now ... for example, the test wells near the fire hall / water tower on Howard Ave ... compared to the 1990 numbers ... after twenty years?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Al MarshallMay 28, 2010 at 7:09 AM

    Ther is a very wide range depending where in Elmira. On the Uniroyal (Chemtura) site there are locations greater than 100 ppb.(Parts per billion). The drinking water standard is .009 ppb. The entire town is higher than .009 ppb. West of Chemtura by the old shirt factory is about 50 ppb. Near the fire hall/ water tower it's about 5 ppb. and then it rises again down near Oriole Pakway and Industrial Dr. to about 25 ppb. Alan

    ReplyDelete
  3. alan MarshallMay 28, 2010 at 7:25 AM

    Rereading your comment I didn't include a comparison to 1990. Some of the concentrations in individual wells are lower now but it seems to be a direct function of the volume of pumping . The plume will shrink over time with heavy pumping but over the last twenty years this pumping has been repeatedly interrupted for repairs, maintenance etc.. Therefore decreases in some wells seem countered mostly by little change in many others.

    ReplyDelete
  4. KatieMay 28, 2010 at 9:24 AM

    Part of the problem with testing the effects of multiple contaminants in drinking water is the direct result of funding decisions.

    Scientists can only do research on things they get funding for. That funding can come from federal government or private industry. Private industry isn't going to fund that kind of research, and to get federal funding, you need to be doing research that is sufficiently novel and "exciting". And the way this works, an individual scientist has to find this interesting enough to devote a career to.

    For issues like drinking water, the federal scientific funding agency (NSERC) can also issue what they call "Strategic Grants" to encourage scientists to attack a particular public problem.

    If there's no money to research a particular problem, there's no research.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMay 28, 2010 at 11:23 AM

    Thank you for the replies on my comment from yesterday afternoon.

    You mentioned there was a 25 ppm DMNA reading on an Oriole Parkway & Industrial Drive well. A recent reading or is this older data? Was this a test well or an operating well? Do you have data that tracks this one well that you can present in columns by year and ppm? I am curious to see how this one well (as an example) has behaved with migration, pumping, and time.

    I understand that funding can effect testing, but surely the testing program, was followed through to give annual data, and not hit and miss that was inplied.

    Again, I am curious on individual well data that you may offer for viewing, and not the blended quality of Elmira water from the system area wells in Woolwich / Waterloo / Mannheim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. al MarshallMay 28, 2010 at 12:23 PM

    Wow! Either your questions regarding well CH38 at Oriole & Industrial are an amazing coincidence or else like myself, you already have some knowledge/concerns regarding this particular well.
    CH38 is an observation or test well not a pumping well. I looked up the specific #'s and dates for the Municipal Upper (CH38B) and the Municipal Lower Aquifer (CH38A). ML for NDMA 2000- 108 ppb, 57, 99, 2003-?, 41, 23, 20, 18, 3.5, and finally 13 for 2009. All of these readings are horrid considering the drinking standard of .009 ppb. Notice there is a decreasing trend except for 2002 and 2009.
    MU NDMA CH38B from 1998- 48 ppb, 47, 71, 93, 62, 5.5, 2003- ?, 39, 32, 24, 22.5, 11, 7. Again with the exception of 2000 and 2004 there is a decreasing trend. My concern is why are these #'s so high both in 1990 as well as now? Is there another source of NDMA very close to thes wells? My guess is either Sanyo (I have no data to back that up) OR the former Borg Textiles? Borg very much fits the profile as a potential NDMA source.
    I trust this is helpful but feel free to ask for further clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AlanMay 28, 2010 at 12:37 PM

    Small error. MU (Municipal Upper) CH38B NDMA
    These concentrations start in 1997 not 1998. Therefore there is no decreasing trend for 19999, 2000 and 2004.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousMay 30, 2010 at 9:19 AM

    I thought the UN drinking standards and the 1990 era discovery of shocking NDMA numbers in pumped Elmira water were in the ppm (parts per million)? I thought that a number like 6 ppm was the UN threshold. I guess I will have to visit the newspapers of the day, or the binder at the Elmira library.

    Parts per billion is very small ratio! If the test numbers have declined from say 25 ppm to 25 ppb, I see progress!

    I appreciate your blog site Alan.

    Here is another question for you - what is the reported rough cost for one NDMA sampling test, specifically looking only for NDMA from Elmira area well water.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alan M. (agm)May 30, 2010 at 9:26 PM

    To Anonymous: Sorry I don't have the foggiest in regards to the costs of water samples.
    P.S. Thank God NDMA was never at 25 ppm. Also keep in mind that .oo9 ppb = 9 ppt (parts per trillion). NDMA being one of the most carcinogenic compounds known has a very, very low drinking standard.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alan M.May 30, 2010 at 9:30 PM

    To Anonymous: Please doublecheck my earlier comments. I mentioned 25 ppb. not 25 ppm.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)