|
Back
The following is a log of emails and other information documenting Maine DEP's reaction to NSD's report of an unauthorized pollution discharge event at Dragon Cement on December 3, 2005. Scroll down for most recent update =============================================================== Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 12:46:59
http://www.penbay.org/dragon.html
Neighbors take a look at the picture on the main page of our website and then click on it to see a close-up. These are photos shot yesterday afternoon from Route one. The location is the east end of the cement plant (end closest to rockland.) Some sort of pale liquid goo pouring down a hillside.
I have notified the state hazardous waste folks this morning; the BEP has also been contacted with the pictures. Waiting for response....
Ron
===============================================================
Dear Mr Williams,
Has Maine DEP made any preliminary findings as to the waste materials that appear to be leaking from the waste outfall or stormwater outfall appearing in the images that I sent you a web link to? We'd appreciate an update of any sort.
See: http://www.penbay.org/dragon.html
Sincerely
Ron Huber
===============================================================
From: Dumont, Aaron A
Dear Mr. Huber,
Today Richard Heath and I performed a site investigation at Dragon. The purpose our visit was to investigate the source of the mystery stain on the quarry wall. This stain is not slime as it appears at first glance, but a form of calcium sulfate precipitate. Water is running out of a culvert (point source unknown) and running down the quarry wall. As the water is flowing down the quarry wall it is depositing calcium sulfate on the rock face. When Richard and I looked at your photos of this precipitate we were almost positive that it was linked with the clinker pile, and the activity that is taking place in this area. After looking around the yard, it seems highly unlikely that this water is coming from the clinker or CKD piles. What we do know at this point is that the water has a pH of 12 or 13 (exact chemical composition yet to be determined). At this point it seems like this is going to get referred to Mike Hudson of the RCRA unit, and to Dennis Merrill of Land and Water.
Aaron Dumont
===============================================================
From: Ron Huber
Dear Mr Dumont, Thanks for checking; we look forward to learning more about the nature of the waste material and its origin. Please let us know who will be carrying out further review of this substance, once that is decided.
Best wishes
Ron Huber
===============================================================
From: mlibby@perkinsthompson.com [mailto:mlibby@perkinsthompson.com]
Mr. Dumont and Mr. Heath,
I am writing in regards to the site visit you both made to Dragon Products Company on Wednesday, December 7, 2005. According to an email Mr. Dumont sent to Ron Huber that same day, it was determined that the slime running down the quarry wall was actually a form of calcium sulfate precipitate. Mr. Dumont also stated that this water running down the quarry wall had a ph of 12 or 13, with the exact chemical composition yet to be determined. Could you please forward me a copy of these test results, as well as the exact chemical composition once that is determined. As I understand it, this matter is being referred to Mike Hudson of the RCRA unit and to Dennis Merrill of the Bureau of Land and Water Quality. I would appreciate it if you could copy them on this request as well.
Thank you both for your time and help with this matter.
Matthew K. Libby
===============================================================
From: Dumont, Aaron A [mailto:Aaron.A.Dumont@maine.gov]
Mr. Libby,
Richard Heath delivered the samples to HETL on December 8, 2005 at 1:14 pm. We are not expecting anything until very late December or early January (the lab is very busy). I will notify and send you the results once those get in from the lab. Originally, I thought that Mike Hudson and Dennis Merrill were going to get involved, but I was wrong. However, it does appear that Dragon addressed this issue and problem has been remediated. Below is the email that Ann Thayer sent me earlier today.
Aaron
This is a follow up to our discussion by phone. After your visit on Tuesday, we notified Dig Safe and had the area marked for work on Wednesday, Dec.7, 2005. On Wednesday, we capped the drainage pipe that we identified that came from a sump in the clinker storage building (the reclaim tunnel). This drainage pipe connected with an old stormwater drain from the original 1928 facility. We determined that this stormwater drain was not necessary, so a contractor also dug up the stormwater drain and we capped that as well. The drainage, in short, has been discontinued.
Aaron Dumont
===============================================================
From: Matthew K. Libby
Aaron,
Thanks for your response. I have a few questions regarding the calcium sulfate precipitate that was flowing from a sump in the clinker storage building. It is noteworthy that Dragon responded quickly to address this problem, but many issues still remain. Do we know how long this substance has been draining out of the sump and where it has gone? Does this effluent from this drainage pipe ultimately empty into a river or lake? Who will evaluate the effect this substance has had on the environment and those who live in the area? Who will be responsible for cleaning up any contamination that has resulted from the release? What are Dragon’s responsibilities and liabilities if it is indeed determined to be a hazardous substance?
According to Ann Thayer, as stated in your email below, the substance was flowing from a drainage pipe that came from a sump in the clinker storage building. Now that the drainage pipe has been capped, where is this substance now going? I assume it will just be diverted to another area. How will it be disposed of then? Is Dragon’s storm water in compliance with the regulations? What is the regulatory framework for the investigation and remediation of releases of hazardous substances?
Thanks for taking the time to review my concerns. I appreciate your help.
Matt
===============================================================
From: Dumont, Aaron A Mr. Libby,
We do not know how long a period of time that water from the clinker reclaim
tunnel has been conveyed into the stormwater system. However, it can't be
any older than the plant modernization (when Dragon switched from a wet to a
dry process). This is the first occurrence of this type of event that the
Department is aware. The effluent did not empty into a river or a lake, but
was directed into the quarry. The water at the bottom of the quarry is
pumped back to the plant as process water, and used in the cement making
process.
When Dragon corrected this stormwater issue last week, they
stopped conveying stormwater into the quarry, and whatever water makes it
way into the reclaim tunnel is used in the process. The precipitate on the
quarry wall is going to be cleaned up and incorporated into the process as
well.
Thanks,
Aaron Dumont
|