Saturday, March 23, 2019


We covered the off-site aquifer pumping last Monday.

Table A.2 advises us that the two highest inputs into the combined on and offsite treatment system for the municipal aquifers is toluene at 6,500 parts per billion and carboxin at 850 parts per billion (ppb). Toluene is an LNAPL (light non-aqueous phase liquid) and carboxin is a DNAPL (dense non-aqueous phase liquid) chemical.

Table A.4 gives us concentrations of various chemicals going into the on-site Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System (UACTS). There are some more than idiotic method detection limits of both 50,000 and 100,000 ppb. for Methyl Ethyl Ketone and for Acetone respectively. Otherwise the highest concentration chemicals are toluene, chlorobenzene, mercaptobenzothiazole, carboxin and aniline. These various LNAPLs and DNAPLs assure us that the Lanxess site will continue to be a toxic waste site for decades to centuries unless physically removed, chemically broken down or some other serious and legitimate form of source removal.

The MISA outlets to the creek continue with their relatively light discharges of lindane, carboxin and NDPA.

Table C.2 continues with its bizarre data results particularly the arithmetic means for various chemical contaminants. Ten different acid extractables (phenols & chlorophenols) allegedly have higher concentrations upstream of Lanxess than downstream. Is this discharges from the former Bolender Landfill just north (upstream) of Lanxess making their way into the creek? We then have three base/nuetral extractables with the more likely scenario of having higher concentrations at the downstream end of Lanxess than the upstream. These include MBT, BT, NDMA. Oddly we still have four of this group of chemicals with higher concentrations (arithmetic means) at the upstream end namely aniline, carboxin, NMOR and BEHP. Frankly this makes no sense to me at all. Has the uncontained Bolender Landfill for some strange reason decided to leak more now than years ago?

Frankly based upon ongoing incompetence my suspicion is that either CRA or GHD or both simply have mucked up their data, yet again. This needs serious examination but don't hold your breathe.

This folks is but an example of the professionalism, care and honesty with which this entire cleanup has been conducted over the last thirty years.

No comments:

Post a Comment