Monday, May 1, 2017


The disinformation continues. Page 7 we are advised that off-site pumping wells W5A, W3R and E7 contained the limits of the NDMA plume in the Bedrock. This is more confidently claimed the last couple of years as their Schematic of the Conceptual Site Model has been amended to show less and less aquitard (low permeabilty zone) between the Municipal Lower Aquifer and the Bedrock Aquifer particularily at E7 in the south end of Elmira. How is this remotely possible with the major aquitard (LAT) between pumping well W3R and the Bedrock Aquifer?

Speaking of the Bedrock Aquifer CRA (GHD) still claim that while NDMA is present above drinking water standards allegedly it is not contaminated with Chlorobenzene. Balderdash! Both the Municipal Upper (MU) and Municipal Lower Aquifers (ML) are contaminated well above drinking water standards with Chlorobenzene including in areas in direct contact with the Bedrock aquifer. In other words there is a huge window between the Municipal Aquifers and the Bedrock with zero impermeable or even semi-impermeable aquitard protecting the Bedrock Aquifer. Let us also not forget the ability of DNAPLS to gravity flow to the lowest points possible. There is evidence of free phase DNAPLS being found 100 feet below surface at OW57-32R many years ago plus nearby groundwater readings of chlorobenzene in both the MU and ML have historically indicated DNAPL nearby.

My question at the end of the first paragraph can not be answered by a company who cuts and runs from public consultation. Refusing to allow the informed public to ask questions at TAG and RAC meetings is simply to protect the polluter (Chemtura) from embarassment at being publicly caught out in various and sundry lies. Those who are allowed to ask questions (RAC & TAG members) have been vetted by both Chemtura and Woolwich Township as less likely to ask hard, embarrassing or undiplomatic questions.

Figure D.3 in this report indicates inadequate containment of the Upper Aquifer on-site. Figure D.7 indicates an honest (?) admission of the extent of the Upper Aquifer (UA3) on the east side of the Chemtura site. This contradicts various text where they indicate the Upper aquifer either doesn't exist or is extremely limited on the east side. Similarily Figure D.8 does the same thing for the Municipal Upper Aquifer (MU) on the east side of the site. Figures D.10 and D.11 show Chlorobenzene contamination in the Municipal Lower Aquifer (ML) but not in the directly connected Bedrock aquifer directly below. Highly unlikely.

These always cheerful, pro Chemtura Progress Reports continue unabated. Somewhat like their contamination.

No comments:

Post a Comment