MOE acknowledges Site 41 data problem

By Kate Harries WaterWatch
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has reviewed the 2008 Site 41 monitoring report prepared by Jagger Hims (a division of Genivar) and identified problems at two monitoring wells.
One, Borehole 5 in the centre of Site 41, has long been flagged as suspect by the Site 41 Community Monitoring Community.
“Monitoring wells BH5 and BH17 might not be functioning correctly,” says the technnical review by ministry hydrogeologist Lynda Mulcahy.
In a testy exchange with the MOE’s Greg Athron, Stephen Ogden questioned why the ministry continues to provide support for assertions by the County of Simcoe that there’s “sound science” behind Dump Site 41 (the North Simcoe Landfill Site).
Athron insisted that the ministry is being transparent. “The ministry isn’t disagreeing that there’s a problem with that borehole,” he said pointing to the review.
But Ogden was critical of how the ministry is handling the situation. “Just at the last meeting, you were very clear there’s been no scientific information to show that this site has got a problem,” he told Athron. “You didn’t say – ‘by the way it’s not working’. We’ve been telling everybody for years there’s a problem and now you’ve acknowledged what we’ve been saying.”
 The County has used the ministry, Ogden said, referring to “key messages” developed for county councillors at a media training session in December.
“We have a marketing tool here that’s telling all the county councillors .. it doesn’t get any better than Site 41”
Mulcahy’s report, dated November 25, was received by the county around December 7, Athron said. The county’s messages – offering arguments to boost the discredited Dump Site 41 – were last updated December 14.
The significance of the high Borehole 5 reading is that all the monitoring well measurements are averaged – an approach the CMC has questioned – to “prove” that upward gradients are maintained. The Site 41 Certificate of Approval calls for continuous upper gradients to ensure no leachate can escape or the site has to be shut down).
CMC member Gord Leonard said Mulcahy’s report failed to explain why the water levels were measured so much higher at Borehole 5, compared to other monitoring wells. From January 1985 to 2000, the levels in the other wells dropped over three metres, he said, while Borehole 5 dropped by half a metre. In late 2005, the remaining wells began to rise.
 “If you take the monitoring report for 2007 and go through each page you will see where they (the levels) all have dropped yet Borehole 5 sits in the middle of the site. That one dropped until the years 2000-2001- in that era. Then it rose over a metre and a half. That’s what I asked Lynda to explain. What she wrote here, she didn’t explain it.”
Leonard added: “It looks to me like the books are being cooked.”
Ogden noted that according to Jagger Hims’ reports, Borehole 5 never goes down. “It’s always up, and it means that the upward gradients are always being realized. So when we asked for the calibrated modflow, that would have helped us because we could have modelled it without that one well and it would have said the upper gradients aren’t always there, the water level’s dropping.”
Mulcahy stated in her report that she supports Jagger Hims’ conclusions, including that there are upward gradents, despite the possible malfunction. At the time of writing, Jagger Hims was evaluating Borehole 5 but no report had been submitted.
Harry Hunt rejoins CMC
There’s been a shuffling of the guard at the CMC after elections on Thursday. Ron Cobbett remains chair and Gord Leonard continues as a member. They’re joined by Harry Hunt, after an absence of some years. Anne Ritchie-Nahuis steps down and becomes an alternate, along with Stephen Ogden and Darrell Leonard. County representatives continue unchanged – George Lawrence and Andre Claire from Tiny and Tony Hope from Springwater.
There was some discussion as to whether the committee should meet every month, in view of the fact that the dump site has been halted. Hunt argued in favour of continuing with monthly meetings, at the discretion of the chair. “I think at this time we need to keep fully informed, month by month, we can change later but we have some big things coming down, we need to see the Stantec report, we need to see where we’re headed.”
Ogden asks IPC to impose conditions pending judicial review

Simcoe County has obtained a temporary “stay” of the Information and Privacy Commission orders regarding release of the calibrated computer model (modflow). The IPC asked Ogden for his position on whether the stay should be permanent until the outcome of the county’s application for a judicial review of the orders.
Ogden told the CMC that in his lawyer’s submission, the IPC has been asked to impose conditions on any stay so that “until this is all over, no action be taken – st to prevent something happening that would be inappropriate.”
“Why is the county spending so much money to keep the modflow out of our hands?” Gord Leonard asked. “It’s only a two-dollar disk”
“I’ve asked that question… I went direct to the warden the other day,” replied George Lawrence. “I guess I put it in the context of if I was giving business to you, thousands and thousands of dollars every year, and I got into a problem where it was costing me thousands of dollars, I would hope you would bail me out. If you’re not willing to bail me out, my next question would be, why am I doing business with you? I’m waiting for an answer to that.”
Ogden pointed out that the issue the county has asked the judicial review to decide is not whether the modflow should be made public, but on a point of law – whether the IPC can order the county to take legal action if necessary to obtain the modflow from Jagger Hims (Genivar). “It has nothing to do with the modflow. It won’t get it for us, it will do nothing… It’s all just part of a stall.”