MR. RICE & MS. DOUGHTY DO EXCELLENT WORK

Last week, courtesy of Lisa Schaefer (Woolwich Township), I received a twelve page stapled together report. Upon closer examination, the first eight pages were from Mr. Jason Rice, Regional Engineer for the Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP) and the next four pages from Ms. Cynthia Doughty, Hydrogeologist, also for the MOE/MECP. Jason's report was dated April 9, 2020 and Cynthia's was dated March 18, 2020. Both of their reports were critiques/comments of Lanxess and their consultant's (GHD) most recent reports dealing with Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) and with the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the Canagagigue Creek.

The two GHD reports are significant because they are part of the background documents for use with the proposed/threatened Site Specific Risk Assessment (SSRA) for the Canagagigue Creek (the "Gig"). This upcoming SSRA follows both a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) completed in approximately 2004 on behalf of Uniroyal Chemical/Crompton. Dr. Henry Regier wrote a detailed critique of the SSRA process as inflicted upon Elmira based upon his experiences in researching the process as well as in interviewing MOE personnel on the matter back in approximately 2003-2004. Dr. Regier's entire critique can be found in Chapter Seven of my book (Elmira Water Woes: The Triumph Of Corruption, Deceit and Citizen Betrayal) either in the Waterloo Region Advocate blog or in the Cambridge Advocate Blog/Website.

Mr. Rice bluntly hits Lanxess and GHD right in the face with his page 3 statement that "shovel collection" sampling methods "were not described or approved in the workplan, nor discussed as an alternative sampling method with the Ministry during sample collection activities." Furthermore Jason states "The Ministry has already provided feedback on why the shovel samples that collected mostly gravel is not appropriate as it does not collect a representative sediment sample."

WOW! Or in my more direct and blunt language, Lanxess and GHD have rigged the game and continued the long hallowed and appreciated Elmira traditions of junk science and psuedo science (JSAPS). Or in the words of Susan Bryant they have "Adjusted the science according to their needs".

Mr. Rice on this same page alludes to the possibility of historical data showing exceedances of criteria may not have all been used to determine Contaminants of Potential Concern. He also suggests on page 4 that too much data may have been excluded without a proper rationale being presented in the text. He has concerns that for example the magnitude of exceedances was not given proper weight in the determination of COPC nor was it explained why it wasn't. Also an alleged professional source (U.S. E.P.A.) for the 5% frequency of detection rule could not be found. A number of other data sources appear not to have been used as a line of evidence in evaluating potential COPCs.

One of my favorite screw ups is GHD's ability (just like CRA's) to publish ridiculous typographical errors, over and over again. Mr. Rice refers on page 5 to
GHD misstating the data in Tables C.1. C.2 and C.3 .

On page 6 Mr. Rice takes issue with GHD using Shirt Factory Creek (SFC) as an "background" or upstream location. This location is not remotely background as it it partly on the Lanxess property and it flows through Elmira and picks up lots of contaminants on its way not to mention what was historically dumped into and around it by Uniroyal Chemical.

Regarding the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) on the bottom of page 6, Mr. Rice asks the question as to whether toluene in the on-site groundwater could be transporting DDT and /or dioxins to the creek. He also advises that other tributaries need to be sampled as he also did back on page 3. This includes the SDDB or Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm which Lanxess/GHD/MOE like to refer to as 6770 Line 86. Anything to muddy the waters with those folks. Mr. Rice on this page advises that additional sediment sampling is required because Depositional Zones identified in the 2017 creek sampling and investigation were not sampled. Talk about fudging and massaging the results in my opinion.

Ms. Doughty also does not pull her punches. She is clearly upset/outraged by the failures of the Upper Aquifer Containment System (UACS). She advises that "...for at least the last three years, the UACS has temporarily lost hydraulic containment." These nine pumping wells (mostly in Upper Aquifer 1 with two also pumping from Upper aquifer 3) are located in the extremely heavily contaminated south-west corner of the Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess site. She states that the Draft CSM does not accurately portray the extent of the loss of hydraulic containment in the Upper Aquifer. She notes that that analysis inaccurately and inappropriately focuses on one area only and on one occasion when there were several time frames and several pumping wells involved in the failures to contain grossly contaminated shallow groundwater which discharges to the Canagagigue Creek.

Ms. Doughty further advise that surface water (the "Gig") elevation monitoring only occurs four times a year and thus monthly comparisons with groundwater levels are somewhat irrelevant. Also the CSM report by GHD should have clearly indicated which monthly comparisons of ground versus surface water elevations occurred after very recent surface water elevation monitoring. The whole idea of course with hydraulic containment of groundwater is to keep the groundwater elevations lower than the corresponding surface water elevations in order to stop groundwater discharge to the surface water (i.e. the crrek/"Gig").

Ms. Doughty similar to Mr. Rice pokes a hole in GHD's use of criteria or rationales that are not clear or transparent. GHD reference a loss of Upper aquifer containment for five days or more as being significant or relevant without any backup whatsoever. Where did this come from and is it relevant or not? I personally am also concerned with the apparent claim that a 1 cm. difference (i.e. lower) in groundwater compared to surface water is adequate hydraulic containment. I think that that tiny difference in elevation is superficial at best and deceptive as hell at worst.

These comments by two MOE/MECP professionals are quite incredible. I have seen other reports by Cynthia Doughty that I felt were excellent whereas Mr. Rice's were less so. I also know that often these critiques get buried if no other reason that these initiatives by Lanxess/GHD go on either forever or for so many years that they literally get forgotten. Excellent DNAPL reports by CH2MHILL, Jaimie Connelly (MOE), APT, myself and others are a perfect example. As the DNAPL coverup has never ended from 1989 until the present, CRA, GHD etc. just keep on churning out JSAPS (junk & psuedo science) while the other parties die, retire or simply fade away. It's a battle of attrition and as usual time, money and lack of integrity usually win.

To summarize, these two critiques alone are devastating evidence of the failures of process that allow the polluter to buy the cleanup/lack of cleanup that they want. Both GHD reports (COPC & CSM) should be thrown in the garbage and new, independent, paid for by the public (initially) reports written by appropriate professionals are required. Bought and paid for professionals working directly for the polluter need not apply.