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.