Saturday, February 1, 2014


After my 10 minute Delegation to CPAC, Steve Quigley of Conestoga Rovers attempted some damage control on behalf of Chemtura. I had quoted both hydrogeologists Wilf Ruland and Jaimie Connolly (M.O.E.) stating their written concerns in April 2006 that free phase DNAPL had left the south-west corner of Chemtura's (Uniroyal) property and gravity flowed onto their neighbour's property ie. Yara (Nutrite). Steve attempted to suggest that there were further DNAPL investigations afterwards hence Wilf and Jaimie's comments were out of date or no longer relevant. I advised Steve Q. that I had read several followup CRA DNAPL reports (2006, 2007 & 2008) and had not seen any reversals or repudiation of their April 3 and April 21, 2006 comments. I further asked Steve that if he had any written reversals of their opinions to please provide them.

Mark Bauman asked Jeff Merriman (Chemtura) if In-Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) worked on DNAPL. Jeff inaccurately replied that it did not. He may also have suggested that the DNAPL was too deep. I corrected Jeff and quoted a twenty year old research article from the University of Waterloo that specifically advised that ISCO worked well on DNAPLS. What I forgot to add was that currently ISCO is being used on DNAPLS (TCE) in Cambridge, Ontario . This is to clean up the Northstar Aerospace groundwater contamination.

Mark Bauman also gave CPAC information in regards to a Motion for Reconsideration at Woolwich Council regarding the underground fuel tanks that Council recently permitted by the former south wellfield in Elmira. CPAC passed a Motion to attend Council and ask for such a Reconsideration. I believe that will occur this coming Tuesday evening with Sebastian, Dan, maybe Viv and others in attendance.

Graham Chevreau of CPAC raised DNAPLS as well as Control Orders and asked a number of difficult questions of Chemtura/CRA. He asked about any followup Control Orders to the 1991 Order as well as asking about whether Uniroyal's subsequent multiple name changes had been addressed in writing regarding the various Control Orders. My notes seem to reflect a non answer on that question from Chemtura/CRA/M.O.E.. Graham also asked about the demand for containment in all aquifers. Jeff Merriman again incorrectly stated that all aquifers on the Chemtura site were contained. He also incorrectly stated that the Upper Aquifer Containment System (UACTS) was concluded and agreed upon. That is absolute rubbish and in fact that is the issue which caused APT Environment to walk away from the UPAC (CPAC) table in June 1994. Regarding all aquifers being contained I corrected him and pointed out that 3/4 of the shallow aquifer was uncontained as well as the Municipal Lower (ML) and Bedrock (BR) aquifers on site. Jeff's response was that this was an old, rehashed disagreement. Chairman Dan Holt replied that it certainly wasn't a rehashed argument for this CPAC.

Sebastian went back to Steve Martindale of the M.O.E. on an issue Sebastian raised at the last CPAC meeting in November. Steve M. had been asked whether he knew of any other sites in Ontario that had achieved drinking water standards in some aquifers but not all; and were then allowed back into the drinking water system. Steve's response was that no he knew of no such scenarios. Graham proposed a Motion asling the M.O.E. to provide clarity to CPAC, Chemtura and the public in regards to the final cleanup. In other words is the 2028 deadline for achieving drinking water standards for all aquifers, all chemicals etc. or not. CPAC passed this Motion.

Vivienne Delaney asked the M.O.E. for details about the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) which Steve Martindale had mentioned. He advised their history, length of appeals, difficulties etc..

Numerous CPAC members raised questions about various DNAPL issues. I had suggested that Chemtura/CRA had failed to test for DNAPL chemicals for many years in the wells in the former RPW ponds. Jeff M. suggested that instead they tested for DNAPL chemicals in the UACTS wells along Canagagigue Creek. This I will check out and confirm however it still doesn't answer why they don't want to know how bad the concentrations are on the most contaminated area of their site.

Lastly Susan Bryant manged to embarass Chemtura by reasking a question that both I and Pat McLean had asked at an earlier CPAC meeting regarding neonicotonoid pesticides. Susan indicated that she had found information that indeed Chemtura has used neonicotonoid pesticides which are harmful to bees, in the past. Jeff M. had answered no to the question last November as stated in the Minutes; whereas this time Dwight Este advised that well Chemtura had had a joint venture with another company to produce these pesticides in the past. This was a fitting end to the meeting and in my opinion could be construed as typical Chemtura stick handling of the facts.

No comments:

Post a Comment