Province won’t order new water study for hazardous waste dump

A landfill on the Annapolis Valley’s North Mountain — where tonnes of construction debris, asbestos, and toxic waste are being trucked from building sites in Halifax — will not be required to submit to another hydrogeological study by the Nova Scotia Department of Environment. 

Residents whose wells are located downslope from the Arlington Heights Construction & Demolition site want the dump closed. 

In the summer of 2020, a Freedom of Information request disclosed the presence of heavy metals and mercury in surface water hundreds of times higher than recommended levels in Canadian Drinking Water standards.

The Arlington West dump received its permit from the Environment Department after a 2004 engineering report which included a hydrogeological study by MGI Inc. 

The study concluded the soil and bedrock on which the original landfill was built is “impermeable” — a finding that supposedly made groundwater and domestic wells down the mountain from the dump safe from contamination. 

The dump has expanded three times since then and was the site of a long-running underground fire. 

Under the previous owner, the dump accepted a nasty combination of waste of known as “autofluff”: used oils, plastics, and ground-up car parts. The dump did not have a permit to do so and the previous owner, Jennifer Ehrenfeld-Poole, received a warning following an Environment department audit. 

Ehrenfeld-Poole was the Progressive Conservative candidate for Annapolis in the 2021 provincial election, in which she ran unsuccessfully.

In 2017, Arlington expanded and received an environmental approval to bury asbestos waste. 

In 2020, Dexter Construction — the largest road builder and one of the largest engineering companies in the region — bought the dump.

Related: City construction waste going to North Mountain dump is ‘a threat to public health,’ say residents

A small group called the Annapolis Waterkeepers continues to call on the government to close the facility. Kip McCurdy, who lives near the dump and is a co-founder of Annapolis Waterkeepers, contends that the dump “is a hazard to human health.”

In early March, the Waterkeepers submitted a review of the 2004 hydrogeology report to the provincial Environment department. This “second opinion” was prepared by Paul Hubley, a hydrogeologist with more than 30 years’ experience.

Hubley found several flaws with the way tests for “impermeability” were conducted in 2004. He also questioned why MGI relied on the company that owned the landfill to collect the soil samples. Hubley stated:

Based on my review, the conclusion made by the facility reports that the site soils are “impermeable” is not reasonable. This is based on the various discrepancies and contradictions within the hydrogeological assessment and application that reduce the reliability of the submission below a reasonable standard. 

Hubley recommended the province order a new hydrogeology study of the site that should be carried out by a hydrogeologist outside of government. 

Halman won’t order new study

A month ago, Environment and Climate Change minister Tim Halman told the Halifax Examiner he would respond to the new review after scientists in his department had examined Hubley’s work. 

The review of the review has been completed. 

Environment communications advisor Mikaela Etchegary sent the Halifax Examiner the following email, which indicates that Halman is satisfied the 2004 study was, and continues to be, adequate. No further investigation is contemplated. Here’s part of the Department of Environment’s response:

 The 2004 hydrogeological assessment on the site conditions is still valid — the site conditions, including geologic and hydrogeologic conditions, did not change over the 20-year period. The on-going water monitoring program provides additional information about the hydrogeological conditions of the site. However, Environment and Climate Change staff continue to respond and investigate concerns brought forward by local residents.

The soil samples that were used by MGI in its analysis in 2004 were gathered by a professional engineer who was hired by Arlington Heights C&D to prepare the initial application. Again, the soil permeability test that was conducted has been reviewed in detail and meets the requirements set out in the NS Construction and Demolitions Guidelines. Soil permeability testing for the site was also conducted in 2020. The 2020 permeability testing results are consistent with the results conducted by MGI Limited in 2004.

As for how the soil samples were gathered, Kip McCurdy’s account differs from the one put forward by the Department. McCurdy says he was onsite when Arlington’s original owner, Meb Poole*, was operating the backhoe to dig the pit. The way McCurdy remembers the occasion, it was Poole’s son who went down the hole with a device to collect soil samples. McCurdy acknowledges it’s possible an engineer was also on site to supervise. 

In the email to the Examiner from Environment’s communications advisor Mikaela Etchegary, local residents are assured their concerns are being heard:

Local ECC staff are fully engaged on this file and keep the Minister updated. Again, we take all concerns brought forward to us by the public very seriously and do investigate.

 ECC staff conducted a thorough review and analysis of the Hubley report, and our conclusion stands — the site meets the Construction and Demolition Guidelines requirements and is consistent with the MGI evaluation conducted in 2004 and 2005. The Department is required, under the Environment Act, to inspect, monitor, and enforce sites like this to ensure compliance with our regulations and we will continue ongoing monitoring and inspection at this site to ensure risks associated are mitigated and managed by the approval holder.

But Beth Cranston, a member of the Annapolis Waterkeepers commented, “I’m disappointed but I’m not surprised by this decision. It’s more of the same. The response we received from the department is dismissive and it’s very concerning.”

In addition, Kip McCurdy says the response from the Environment department doesn’t deal with a key point of dispute between Hubley and the 2004 hydrogeology report. That dispute is focused on the interpretation of a 2004 test well that was drilled into bedrock and became dry. McCurdy says:

To Paul Hubley, that dry well meant that the water that would have collected as it did in the other test wells, somehow found an exit through the bedrock. But the department’s hydrogeologist interprets that to mean that the bedrock is impermeable, which is a bizarre interpretation that makes no sense.

McCurdy says the reason the group sent Halman a second opinion was so Halman could consider it if future approvals are sought to extend the life or expand the size of the landfill. 

Both McCurdy and Cranston are pleased that Halman has committed to meeting with them “in the near future.” It’s the first time any of the five environment ministers in the past six years have agreed to have an in-person discussion of their concerns. 

The Waterkeepers say these concerns have not gone away, despite the latest reassurance put forward by the Environment department. 

*As originally published, this article incorrectly identified Meb Poole.