Section 2 deals with Uniroyal Chemical's waste management history. Over the decades there have been a few mostly self-serving changes and adjustments to the story they have been selling to UPAC, CPAC, TAG and the public. This report is the same. ........................................................ This first item is not self-serving in that Lanxess are admitting that waste area IR-1 at the north west end of the site has a maximum depth of SIX meters. That is right, very close to twenty feet deep of chemical wastes right beside the Canagagigue Creek. This area was also described by Ken Reger back at the Environmental Appeal Board (EAB) as being highly problematic for wildlife such as muskrats. This site was filled with aniline sludges, nitrobenzene and some diphenylamine (DPA) tars. It's all still there with exactly zero discussions to remediate it even partially. IR-2 (Iron Oxide-2) was at the north-east end of the property and had aniline sludges as well as solids from RPW-6, 7 & 8 in it. Apparently a large part of IR-2 was excavated in 1993 prior to building the Envirodome/Mausoleum above it. A small amount of black tar-like materials were put into the new Envirodome while a large portion of the contents were used to backfill the RPE-4 & 5 buried waste excavation of 93-94. That may well be new information to me
........................................................................................................... Page 3 in describing the east pits (RPE-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ) continues with the false narrative that these pits drained southwards through a low lying swampy area and rather than following the ground surface topography and discharging onto the Stroh farm, they instead continued to flow straight south through a narrow gap giving them access to GP-1 (Gravel Pit 1). Oddly the next paragraph honestly states that "...RPE-1 was closed and covered over in the mid-1960s, but the waste materials were left in place." Even more oddly the next paragraph titled RPE-1 states the following: " Specific details regarding the closure of this pit were not available for review. It is therefore not known if impacted materials were removed from this area." WTF!!! This is neither the first nor likely the last that CRA/GHD contradict themselves within their own reports. ................................. In the late 1940s the above ground wooden 2,4-D pipeline from Building #15 which discharged into RPE-4 was replaced by a buried pipeline that was constructed beneath the Canagagigue Creek. I would very much like to know the fate of that pipeline or whether it still exists under the creek or not. Again on page 4 the self-serving nonsense is repeated that everything overflowing from the east pits gravity flowed into GP-1. There is also a somewhat confused story that sludges from RPW-6, 7, 8 were dumped into RPE-3 whereas liquids from RPE-3 were pumped over into RPE-4 and RPE-3 backfilled. We then are advised that the 2009 excavation removed 565 tonnes of comingled fill and waste material from RPE-3 which I well recall. My recall is that we had previously been confidently told that RPE-3 had been excavated and remediated decades earlier. Apparently not. .................................................... On page 5 I am glad to see the correct number quoted in regards to the 1993 excavtion of RPE-4 & 5 namely 46,000 tonnes. At one time we were quoted lower numbers around 33,000 tonnes. ............................................................................................... Page 5 under the heading of BAE-1 also has some confusing wording when it states that "Drums were buried along the east side of the Creek for a period of approximately ten years..." A few sentences later in the same paragraph BAE-1 is described as being "...adjacent to the future location of RPE-4." This in fact is where all the maps over the last thirty years plus have shown BAE-1 to be located namely on the east side of RPE-4 and immediately beside it which is absolutely no where near "...along the east side of the Creek." The east side of the Creek is several hundred metres to the west. These kinds of errors, whether intentional or otherwise, are why involved citizens need to be able to both ask questions publicly AND to be able to demand intelligent answers. ........................................................ Again on page 6 GHD are still inaccurately selling the direct flow of Uniroyal Chemical liquid wastes from the east side pits into the former gravel pit known as GP-1. GHD also advise that most of the overflow went into GP-1 versus GP-2. That we already had figured out based upon higher concentrations of DDT and dioxins found in GP-1 and at that time we believed that some of the liquid wastes flowed through GP-1 and then into GP-2. More likely the wastes that did get to GP-1 through the small gap then mostly stayed in GP-1. The wastes found in GP-2 likely flowed southwards around the east side of GP-1 and then some ended up in GP-2. I mean seriously why be in charge of the narrative if you can't amend it as needed?
No comments:
Post a Comment