ELMIRA INDEPENDENT & CPAC

Yesterday's Elmira Independent carrys the following article on the front page "CPAC asks ministry to clarify cleanup criteria". The Independent are currently and have been for some time the sole media to regularily attend public CPAC meetings. This article covers the entire public meeting of Thursday January 30, 2014. The title is in reference to an issue originally brought to light back at the November public CPAC meeting. Graham Chevreau led the charge this time and he put forward a Motion asking the Ministry of the Environment to develop formal criteria to determine "...when the cleanup has been reached, including identification of specific contaminants, wells and aquifers.".

Dr. Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach again asked questions pertaining to the bedrock aquifer and whether it will be seperately addressed. Steve Martindale was unable to give a specific answwer to the question. Yours truly got into a debate with Jeff Merriman of Chemtura as to whether they had hydraulic containment of their entire site. They do not although they claim to have over 90% of the contamination contained which is both debatable as well as a different criteria then what the 1991 Control Order demands of them. It has however been clear for some time that the M.O.E. only intermittently and erratically enforce their own Control Orders.

There was also further discussion of the proposed underground fuel tanks near the former south wellfield on Arthur St..

Finally the M.O.E. have internally submitted a formal proposal for consideration involving a further study of DDT in the downstream Canagagigue Creek. The next public CPAC meeting is set for Thursday February 27/14 either at 6 or 6:30 pm. in the Woolwich Council Chambers.

LOTS OF FREE PHASE DNAPLS ON CHEMTURA'S ELMIRA SITE

Since last Monday's posting regarding DNAPL chemicals (4 of them) published in Chemtura's monthly Progress Reports I've been doing some more digging. Specifically I'm looking for groundwater results for these chemicals in the former operating pond area. This area is in Chemtura's south-west corner alongside the Canagagigue Creek and is known as RPW5, 6, 7, & 8. The RPW stands for Retention Pond West.

So far I've been focusing on Mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT) and the concentrations are basically awful in RPW 6 & 7 from 1994 through to 2004. That's as far as I've gotten however that time period encompasses both before and after the startup (1997) and operation of the Upper Aquifer Containmant and Treatment System (UACTS). What is becoming clearer and clearer is that Chemtura's pretense that they don't have free phase DNAPL on their site is beyond the pale. In regards to RPW8 it is still being used as a storm retention pond and hence there are no monitoring wells within it. At some point I will be examining the wells just a few metres away for DNAPL chemicals. Also I've just figured out that some of the UACTS pumping wells are actually within the borders of the retention ponds. As a generalization I'm finding their concentrations of MBT within RPW6 & 7, while incredibly high, are still significantly lower than other monitoring wells within RPW6 & 7. This will require further study on my part.

FRESH EYES ENVIRONMENTALLY

I've always liked the idea of any group being a mixture of experience combined with intelligence and inexperience. The inexperienced tend to look at old problems and issues in a totally different light. They also can pick up on anomolies that the older hands have simply taken for granted. Something along those lines has just occurred at CPAC.

Currently CPAC are working hard on a number of fronts. These would include examination of Conestoga Rovers updated (Nov. 2012) plans for remediation of the off-site aquifers in Elmira, Chemtura on-site source removal including Dioxins, DDT and DNAPLS as well as at downstream monitoring (Dioxins/DDT) of the Canagagigue Creek. Public education is also coming to the forefront this year. Above and beyond these concerns one of CPAC's newest members has noticed something peculiar, an anomoly if you will. The Ministry of the Environment's Control Orders (1984, 90, 91 & 2000) are addressed to Uniroyal Chemical. Now that was certainly appropriate at the time. Since then however the corporation has been purchased and the name changed, firstly to Crompton and then to Chemtura. No one at CPAC has seen any amendment or revised Control Order addressed to Uniroyal Chemical's current name ie. Chemtura.

Is this an oversight? Is this irrelevant? Has it been changed and CPAC simply not circulated with the new Order? Or horror of horrors is this yet another disgusting betrayal of the public and CPAC by the Ontario M.O.E.? Is it even possible that the M.O.E. simply let the old Control Orders expire with the new corporate takeover, without advising all the stakeholders? The answer to the last question is a resounding yes. Anything is possible from our Ministry of the Environment. Blatant lies, errors of omission, writing Orders first and then having pretend public consultation about them afterwards, sweetheart deals, looking the other way and feigning ignorance about technical DNAPL and or groundwater issues are all in a days work for our M.O.E.. Maybe there is absolutely nothing nefarious about this lack of a name change on supposedly binding Control Orders. The Minstry's rep however would make even the naive suspicious.

HIGH TECH UNDERGROUND FUEL TANKS - A RED HERRING?

Last night I attended Woolwich Council Committee of The Whole. Dr. Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach was a Delegate on behalf of the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC). He respectfully requested a Motion of Reconsideration from Woolwich Council regarding their recent decision to exempt the car wash on Earl Martin Drive from the Woolwich by-law prohibiting underground fuel tanks near the former south wellfield. Council unfortunately but as expected did not agree to a Motion of Reconsideration. The proponent for the underground fuel tanks also attended and yet once again explained the latest technology of double lined tanks including sensors to alert the owner/operators of any leak or breech of either hull.

Afterwards Ron Campbell, Sebastian and myself left Council Chambers. The proponent Hassan M. stopped outside the room and wished to engage in a friendly discussion. Ron was a few feet ahead of us and had to get home but Sebastian and I had a very informative discussion with Hassan plus two employees of MTE Consultants who were there on behalf of Hassan. Of course discussion centred around both the technology of fuel tanks as well as the vulnerability of the aquifers to contamination. I agreed with some of their points but had serious reservations on others.

It wasn't until I got home that I had an ephinany. The technology including sensors based on a vacuum between the two liners (hulls) is held to be almost foolproof. We were advised that leaks can not possibly go undetected and hence will be discovered early enough to prevent any serious damage. We were also advised that an organization known as the TSSA has the authority to step in and demand initial construction standards as well as insist upon proper maintenance and replacement when necessary. This being Canada where neither railway cars carrying hazardous cargo nor their tracks are properly maintained and upgraded leaves me less than confident in our authoritys oversight. Don't even get me started on our Ministry of Environment. None of this however was my ephinany.

In the past including when I was a kid working at a gas station in Kitchener for the summer, the technology was much simpler. We "dipped" the tanks on a regular basis. We and all garages had a long wooden rod with clearly marked lines on it. It was inserted through the steel cover over the tank and pushed to the bottom. The rod was raised and the liquid level and hence volume of liquid was right at eye level on the rod and was very easy and accurate to measure. From there simple mathematics as to how many gallons were sold since the last measure of the tank compared to the present measure would immediately inform you if there had been theft or leakage. Therefore the ephinany is this. High tech leakage "sensors" are a red herring. They are nothing but a high tech solution to a non existent problem. If your gas tank has a leak it will be constant, measurable and over time increasing with or without sensors to tell you.

There are remediated and unremediated former service stations throughout Kitchener-Waterloo. Here in Woolwich Township we have a horrible one in Heidelberg and several in Elmira that required major remediation. Those owners all knew they had a leakage problem for a very long time. It was strictly a business decision as to how much leakage of fuel they could tolerate before it was more profitable to excavate and replace the tank. If you are only losing between a gallon or two per week (10-15 gallons per month) are you going to spend many thousands of dollars taking the pump out of service and ripping up the old tank? Very unlikely. Now compare this to above ground tanks. They will immediately be both visible and odourous. Gasoline and diesel both smell and it's unpleasant. Immediately your neighbours and customers will know if your above ground tank is leaking. Hence it will be repaired or replaced much more quickly. Underground is out of sight and out of mind. This is the red herring of underground sensors and underground tanks. They replace environmental decison making with business decison making.

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

As previously posted our Woolwich Council have displayed their lack of historical and environmental knowledge with their decision to exempt the car wash on Earl Martin Drive from athe Woolwich by-law prohibiting gas tanks so close to the currently pumping wellfield E7/E9. Notable for his last minute conversion was Councillor Bauman who seems to be working hard to restore his credibilty with CPAC, the committee of Council, of which he is a member. His attacks on me both at council and at CPAC have not served him well. Regardless he listened when CPAC spoke about the value in maintaining the prohibition on underground tanks near the south wellfield and indeed read his written remarks into the record at council's last vote on the matter.

Councillor Bauman as promised delivered to me a copy of those remarks and I'm going to reproduce verbatim his last four sentences

"* Our original site specific zoning by-law required that fuel tanks be located above ground to protect the wells E7 & E9.

* If these wells were still used to supply drinking water, the Region of waterloo well head protection policy would NOT allow underground tanks.

* Water is vital to our survival, and I would contend that we need to protect our sources whether we are using it for drinking supply or trying to remediate past mistakes that resulted in the contamination we are dealing with today.

For this reason, I will not be supporting the recommendation, and would ask the applicant to reconsider his request and use above ground tanks."


I (Alan) believe that Councillor Bauman has done a good job here and I especially like his reminder in the last sentence that no one is denying this business the opportunity to sell gasoline or diesel. They are merely asking that above ground tanks be used which are idiot and technology proof as far as spills, leaks and ruptures. Also underground sensors aren't too likely to be effective during a power outage. Well done Councillor Bauman.

CHEMTURA ON-SITE TESTING FOR DNAPL CHEMICALS

This posting if possible should be read along with my postings of last Friday and Saturday. Friday's posting focused on free phase DNAPL being present on the Chemtura site versus residual DNAPL. Saturday's posting mentioned free phase DNAPL flowing from Chemtura onto their neighbour's property, namely Yara (Nutrite). Keep in mind that as usual the vast bulk of negotiations between the M.O.E. and polluters are done in private and in secret and these were no exception. Hence in hindsight we can easily understand why Nutrite were so recalcitrant back in 2004 to accept their responsibility for putting Ammonia both onto Chemtura's property and into the Elmira Aquifers. They knew how badly Uniroyal (Chemtura) had polluted their property. These private discussions were to protect Nutrite, Uniroyal and our Ontario Ministry of the Environment from public and media scrutiny and especially CPAC scrutiny. Uniroyal (Chemtura) wanted to hide the free phase DNAPLS and the M.O.E. wanted to hide their refusal to order on-site cleanup despite smoking gun evidence of pollution leaving Chemtura's site that can't be controlled by hydraulic containment.

I have looked at the very limited data regarding DNAPL chemicals presented in Table A.3 of the Chemtura monthly Progress Reports since last September. It is limited by the number of DNAPL chemicals tested for, by the number of groundwater wells tested and by the location of those wells. Nevertheless despite the inherent limitations the concentrations presented are significant. Two of the four Base/Nuetral DNAPL chemicals are above the 1% solubility rule first brought to UPAC's attention by myself through a report written by hydrogeologist Stan Feenstra in 1992. Mercaptobenzothiazole and Carboxin are routinely above this screening tool (1%) and not just by a little. They are often five to six times higher than a screening tool which in itself understates the likelihood of the presence of nearby Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquids. DNAPLS are so far past mere "evidence" on this site that the M.O.E. should hang their heads in shame. Not only do they surpass most of the highly inflated screening tools but they have been actually discovered in soil and groundwater in several locations on the site yet CRA/Chemtura/M.O.E. continue to deceive.

LAST THURSDAY'S PUBLIC CPAC MEETING

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.