Joint Technical Observation Statement

By
Africa Environmental Watch (AEW) and the Liberian Society of
Environment, Health and Safety Professionals (LSEHSP)
On
The Inter-Agency Investigative Committee Report
On Water Pollution by Firestone Natural Rubber Company

The issue of environmental protection provides us a common vision, one that allows us to
develop synergies from different backgrounds to ensure a clean and safe environment for all life
forms. There are strong correlations between health and the environment to which the quality
of life can be assured and protected. It is against this background that our professional attention
has been drawn to the findings of a recent investigative report by an Inter-Agency Investigative
Committee (referred to as “the committee” in this report) on water pollution by Firestone
Natural Rubber Company’s (referred to as “Firestone” in this report) activities.

Most recently, an investigative committee was requested by the Liberian government to look
into potential pollution by Firestone around Kparnyah Town, Margibi County, Liberia. The
findings of the committee’s final report to President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, dated October 13,
2009, stated that Ninpu creek is being polluted by the high level of orthophosphate emanating
from the discharge of Firestone’s waste water treatment facility. .

The Africa Environmental Watch (AEW), in collaboration with the Liberian Society of
Environment, Health, and Safety Professionals (LSEHSP) want to thank the government of
Liberia and the investigative committee for their work on the Firestone story. However, as we
carefully reviewed the final report submitted by the committee, we believe three major
components of the report were less than adequate.

1. The terms of reference and parameters sampled

2. The water sampling protocols, and
3. The recommendations from the committee based on the results of the samples.

1
Firstly, the terms of reference and the parameters given to Earthtime Inc., the company hired to
conduct the water quality study, was limited in scope for the nature of the investigation.
Secondly, our review determined that Earthtime Inc.’s Final Report entitled “Water Quality
Survey and Analysis for Ninpu and Vah Creeks-Firestone (Harbel, Liberia)”, dated September
2009, was not thorough and comprehensive enough to draw a scientific conclusion. The report
indicates that all tests performed were conducted in accordance with the “Standard Methods
for the Examination of water and wastewater”, 21st Edition, 2005 (referred to as “Standard
Methods” in this report). However, based on the sampling strategy, methodology, and test
results presented in the report, the report draws more questions than answers. Thirdly, the
committee’s recommendations were less than adequate to address continued pollution
prevention at Kparnyah Town.

Our professional observations of the report were based on a collective knowledge of over fifty
years working in the fields of environmental assessment, remediation, restoration, and health
and safety exposure analysis. Below are the following observations:

1) How did the investigative committee arrive at the 14 parameters given to Earthtime
Inc.? An adage in sampling states that “one only finds what one tests for.” Could the
committee have recommended running a battery of tests to determine ALL possible potential
contaminants in the water? Did the committee request Firestone to submit a chemical inventory
list and accompanying Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to determine if other toxic
substances were or are currently used at their facilities? The report did not give any detail
regarding the rationale for these parameters or how the committee reached the terms of
reference.

2) What prompted the analysis of orthophosphate? Orthophosphate (the lone

contaminant of concern per the study), in industrial use, is a corrosion inhibitor typically added
to finished drinking water in low concentrations at treatment plants (<3 mg/L) to treat the water
for lead or copper found in the distribution pipes. Orthophosphate is also used in some
instances when there is difficulty in balancing pH in highly acidic solutions. Additionally,
orthophosphate forms are produced by natural processes, but man-made sources include:

2
partially treated and untreated sewage or waste water, runoff from agricultural sites, and
application of fertilizers.
Could the high level of Orthophosphate be an indication of highly acidic discharge? This would
contradict the (pH) test results in the report suggesting the discharge was not acidic. Could the
elevated Orthophosphate levels be attributed partially or untreated waste water, runoff from
other sources or could it be attributed to the sample handling and testing methods, indicating
false positive results? Accordingly, Standard Methods SM1060B (Table 1060: I) recommends
that Orthophosphate samples must be filtered immediately upon collection and analyzed within
48 hours thereafter. The sampling methodology presented in the report did not indicate that
these procedures were followed.

3) According to Standard Methods SM1060B, samples must be preserved at a temperature

of 4° Celsius (39.20 F) and not 40° Celsius (1040 F) as documented in the report. This alone, with
no qualifier on the samples may allow the analysis to be lower than the MCL (Minimum
Contamination Levels).

4) In the report, there was no mention of quality assurance or quality control (QA/QC)
samples sent to the laboratory for testing, which is a standard industry practice. QA/QC samples
are duplicate samples labeled differently and sent to the laboratory. Both the QA/QC and
properly labeled samples should have the same results; otherwise, the lab results are
questionable. This validates the quality, consistency, and accuracy of the lab work.

5) The report was not clear regarding chain of custody process. Chain of custody is another
standard industry practice that guarantees proper handling and transfer of the samples from the
collection point, ensuring the integrity of the collected samples, to the designated qualified
laboratory. Furthermore, documentation from the receiving laboratory was not disclosed in the
report, which would verify the quality and integrity of the samples were intact upon receipt.

We believe that a thorough and more comprehensive Water Quality Study (WQS) at Firestone
would have considered the following:

1. A complete review of Firestone's natural rubber process; review of the list of

3
chemicals, material safety data sheets (MSDS) of chemicals that are used in their operational
process. A Full review of their treatment plant operations, its chemicals used in the treatment
process, daily and monthly peak flow rates. From this review, develop a sampling regiment and
establish comprehensive list of chemical/physical parameters (organic, inorganic, volatile
organic compounds, etc) to target for laboratory analysis. This will provide the rationale for
selecting the chemicals to be targeted.

2. Develop an Implementation Work Plan to address sampling procedures, test methods,

sampling frequencies, health and safety requirements for personnel collecting the samples,
define the data quality objectives, leading to the site-specific data use and planning. This plan
defines and establishes the quality assurance objectives; defining the criteria for sampling and
evaluations analysis.

3. In the absence of Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia (EPAL) Regulatory

standards, establish baseline or background concentrations of all analytes by collecting series of
samples from locations up-gradient of the secondary treatment pond. This way, the results of
samples collected from the creeks could be evaluated against site-specific conditions in lieu of
comparing the results to World Health Organization (WHO) or Liberia's Class I, II, or III water
quality standards.

4. In addition to the sample locations selected, collect samples at the influent into the
secondary pond from the treatment plant to know the concentrations of wastewater entering
the pond, than compare it to the effluent concentration.

5. Collect a series of samples from all engineered/scientifically established locations over

a period of time at specific intervals (i.e. monthly or quarterly), to obtain sufficient data to
assess the environmental impact of Firestone’s operations on the creeks. One sampling event is
not sufficient to draw a reasonable conclusion in a study of this kind.

6. Consider sediment samples as certain organic and inorganic particulates may settle in
river beds. Once settled, it may be an ongoing source of pollutants to the water body or trigger
the potential for groundwater contamination or harm living organism in the river.

4
7. Avoid placement of samples in a cooler with temperature at 40 degrees Celsius (104
degree F). SM1060B recommends that all samples must be preserved at a temperature of 4
degrees (39.20 F) Celsius, not at 40 degrees.

8. Avoid collecting samples during a rainfall event as shown in the photographs. This
may contribute to dilution of the samples (as units are pulled from the streams) and may raise
questions about the integrity of data collected, especially with non-storm water sampling
activities. It is important that containers used to pull samples prevent foreign bodies from
mixing with the samples.

9. Take sample of the confluence and the Farmington River where these stream flow.
According to the report, only the creeks were contaminated, but these creeks flow into the
Farmington River. What is the status of the water quality at Farmington River?

10. Taking organism survey between three segments of water would provide valuable
information regarding the impact of the Firestone operations on Ninpu Creek. This survey
should include the segment of water upstream of the discharge point, the segment immediately
adjacent to discharge and down toward the confluence of Vah Creek and then the Vah Creek
upstream of the confluence with the Ninpu Creek. Can these segments support life?

The committee’s recommendations also do little to correct the pollution issue or provide
appropriate relief for the residents of Kparnyah town or the environment. Furthermore, the full
cost of the investigation should be deferred to the guilty party, and should not be at the
expense of the Liberian people. The report recommends that Firestone and Kparnyah should
work to solve their problems but makes no mention of enforcing the environmental laws of
Liberia which calls for a fine of $50,000.00 plus the cost of returning the environment to its
original state (as much as is practical).

As such, we recommend the following:

1. Firestone should IMMEDIATELY stop discharging into water bodies pending a new
investigation conducted by a qualified third party. This time, fully delineate the vertical and
horizontal extent of ANY contamination.

5
2. The residents in the affected communities should be privileged to medical check to ensure
their safety and henceforth be placed under IMMEDIATE medical surveillance (who ever is found
guilty of contaminating the river, shall bear the cost pending a thorough investigation). This
requires free periodic clinical visits for a time determined by a qualified medical person until the
risk of chronic health effects are mitigated and/or eliminated.

3. Domestic water should be IMMEDIATELY provided to the affected residents (whoever is found
guilty of contaminating the water supply shall bear the cost pending a thorough investigation).

4. Both Firestone and the Government of Liberia should provide an independent third party to
conduct a thorough investigation; also conduct feasibility /treatability studies on suggested
remedial methods (anyone found guilty of contaminating the river shall bear the cost, pending a
thorough investigation).

5. A complete monitoring regime should be constituted based on site specifics that should be
established by the Environmental Protection Agency of Liberia; providing a continuous data on
established sample media (i.e. monitoring wells, soil, and surface water) – said monitoring
should be conducted by a qualified environmental specialist for a period until the significant
threat is established to have been eliminated.

6. Access to contaminated water bodies should be restricted until remediation exercises are
completed.

7. The residents of Kparnyah Town claimed three (3) lives have been lost as a result of drinking
contaminated water; this allegation needs to be thoroughly investigated to establish validity of
claims.

In view of the above comments, we suggest that President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf revisits the
report by the government’s committee and reconstitute another team that is capable and
possesses the technical skills to perform a thorough investigation. We further suggest that the
President and the government fund the new committee adequately to conduct this investigation
(cost subsequently deferred to guilty party).

6
Africa Environmental Watch, in collaboration with Members of the Liberian Society of
Environment, Health, and Safety Professionals (LSEHSP) believe that pollution impacts the
health of people and life forms everywhere in Liberia, and should therefore, claim our utmost
attention.
We believe that the environment (planet), the people (social) and the economy (prosperity) are
all critical to the pursuit of Liberia’s Poverty Reduction Strategy objectives.

Thank you,

AFRICA ENVIRONMENTAL WATCH

MORRIS KOFFA – EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Liberian Society of Environment, Health, and Safety Professionals (LSEHSP)

LENUS PERKINS, BSCE, CQM. – INTERIM CHAIRMAN
PHILIP B. SUAH, Jr. MBA, EHS – MEMBER
MORRIS KOFFA, MS, ELP, CFPM – MEMBER
ANTHONY S. NAH, JR. MS, CHSP, CIAQM, HEM, EMS - MEMBER
B.K. ROBERTSON, Ph.D. --MEMBER