Wide range of topics at tar ponds joint panel
Discussions cover everything from water to incineration
By Tanya Collier Macdonald
Cape Breton Post
Tues., May 2, 2006
Sydney - Sites requiring $400 million of cleanup work should have enforceable
policies in place with clear liability and ownership measures, suggests Joint
Panel Chairperson Lesley Griffiths.
After confirming that future use of the tar ponds and coke ovens sites didn't
weigh on proposed cleanup options, Griffiths asked if controls were in place to
protect the integrity of the project if the sites are developed. She noted that
the environmental impact statement, at the heart of panel hearings that began
Saturday, is nearly silent on long-term liability.
"We don't have that mandate," said Frank Potter, the agency's acting chief
executive officer. The agency's job is limited to ensuring there is no further
contamination on-site or off-site, he said.
Griffiths disagreed. The statement presented by the agency has two purposes, she
said. The first is to reduce ecological and health risks, the second is for the
project to be a socio-economic boost to Sydney.
"Clearly that's tied to future site use," she said. "Who would retain that
liability? It may be a disincentive to land use."
Potter said the project's Memorandum of Agreement states that the province will
accept ownership of the property when the project is complete. He then suggested
the panel push the matter further with the Nova Scotia Department of
Transportation and Public Works, which is presenting at Friday's hearings.
Incineration was also a topic brought up at Monday's hearing. Each panel member
had a series of questions that focused on anywhere from the simplest of details
to the more complex issues. Panel member William Charles touched on the
semantics of transferring contaminated material by train to an off-site
incinerator.
Don Shosky, Earth Tech expert and agency consultant, said the material will be
loaded into traditional railcars that will be sealed tight on both top and
bottom. The material will be transferred when the weather is warm - about six
months of the year - to prevent it from freezing. That will require stockpiling
of some prepared material to keep the incinerator operating continuously, he
said.
The deciding factor for picking the Victoria Junction Wash Plant on Grand Lake
Road over the Phalen mine site was also addressed during Monday's hearing.
Although the wash plant outscored Phalen by a few points, it appeared to Charles
that economics was the single factor that tipped the decision.
Agency consultant Shawn Duncan said the wash plant was selected because it was
closer, which means less material handling and transportation issues. There is
also more useable infrastructure on the wash plant site.
Although the agency gave some examples of mobile incinerators used during past
cleanups, the panel members asked for more current comparisons, a task
consultants accepted. The agency's team also agreed to provide the panel with
cost comparisons for on-site incineration and a more detailed costing of the
entire project.
The idea of a landfill on the coke ovens site also popped up during the
seven-hour session.
"Are you pretty certain you would have to have a landfill?" asked Griffiths.
Shosky said that a landfill is likely. Material will be decontaminated by a hot
water and steam process, then dumped on a portion of the coke ovens site.
"What would change the most is the actual footprint of the cell itself," he
said. "Further investigation is needed."
The agency's consulting team also addressed outstanding issues from Saturday's
hearing, specifically the impact deep aquifers in the area may have if they
reach channels that direct waterflow to Sydney harbour.
"Our current thinking is that the area will be valved," said Shosky. "It will be
trapped first and tested to determine if it's clean or dirty."
The process will require monitoring throughout the life of the project, he
added.
Charles said he visited the coke ovens and tar pond sites, Sunday, a non-hearing
day. He asked the agency's consultants if contamination will come from the land
side of the tar ponds and, if so, will it be collected by channels planned to be
constructed on the site.
Potter said the only area of concern is property owned by CN Rail, which is
currently managing contaminants on its land.
"It won't be a problem for us," he said, adding monitoring systems are
strategically placed on the sites to identify small problems before they become
big ones.
Today, the public is invited to question the agency on its project plans. The
session begins at 1 p.m.
NOTE: Transcripts from each hearing are posted the following day on CEAA's web
site on the project's registry (reference number 05-05-8989).
tcmacdonald@cbpost.com
Under pressure . . .
Panel member Louis LaPierre asked Don Shosky, Earth Tech expert and a member of
Sydney Tar Pond Agency's consulting team, a series of questions about possible
water pressure developing from containment structures on the sites and the
possibility that the water, looking for relief, would travel to residential
neighbourhoods. Here is an excerpt from that discussion:
Q: La Pierre: I have two questions. When the water table meets that sheet
piling, and that sheet piling will be normal sheet piling, would it be
protected, would it be coated with clay so that you have a permeability that you
would accept for this sheet piling?
A: Shosky: Yes. It would have to have the air-locking systems that are
waterproof.
Q: LaPierre: In theory, do you expect any back pressure in the groundwater
table, particularly in springtime, for example, to develop there.
A: Shosky: That's a very good question. Our modeling has not gone to that level
of detail in the producing phase. My personal opinion is that you would
potentially have some water that would back up behind the sheet piling, possibly
seasonally, but would be absorbed within the rest of the aquifer conditions, not
causing a problem over the course of the year. I believe that that mounding that
would occur would recede over a reasonable amount of time.
Q: LaPierre: I guess my concern would be that during that time that you have the
water, as you proceed with your design, that you may model it because there are
two streets at those sites where people live. There are few people that live on
Frederick Street but there are some on the other side (of the coke ovens). My
second question is, if you modeled it, does the pressure build back to those
levels and could you have hydraulic conductivity pressures through basements for
example.
A: Shosky: That's a very good question. Our modeling has not gone to that level
of detail in the producing phase. My personal opinion is that you would
potentially have some water that would back up behind the sheet piling, possibly
seasonally, but would be absorbed within the rest of the aquifer conditions, not
causing a problem over the course of the year. I believe that that mounding that
would occur would recede over a reasonable amount of time.
|
Cleanup in a click
Web sites that provide information on the joint panel process and the
remediation plan include:
www.stpco-review.ca
www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca
www.tarpondscleanup.ca
Picture not available :
From left, Wilf Kaiser, Frank Potter, Gregory Gillis, Shawn Duncan, Brian Magee
and John Walker are members of a team formed by the Sydney Tar Ponds Agency to
answer questions posed by members of a joint panel. The sessions will begin at 1
p.m. at the Victoria Park Armouries in Sydney.
|