Tuesday, June 21, 2022

ERRORS & OTHER WEIRD STUFF IN LANXESS"S "REVISED EAST SIDE GROUNDWATER REPORT"

 Page 8 continues the charade regarding the contaminated Stroh property. It's not so much that they aren't admitting it as they are deceptively refusing to name it for what it is namely THE STROH FARM or THE STROH PROPERTY. Throughout this report and others it's either called 6770 Line #86 or it's referred to as the Property. At the same time they refer to the pig pen of a mess of formerly Uniroyal Chemical now Lanxess Canada as "the Site". I guess that they think that far enough down the road people will forget that both cattle products (beef/dairy) and produce such as corn and soybeans were commercially grown on these contaminated lands and then distributed into the food chain.                      ...................................................................................                                                                                     Page 9 has a Table on it showing an inaccurate Ontario Drinking Water Standard (ODWS) for NDMA (N-nitrosodimethylamine). Most other references elsewhere as well as in this report have the ODWS as .009 ppb or ug/litre.  This Table claims that the ODWS for NDMA is ten times smaller at .0009 ppb or ug/l.                                                                          ..................................................................................................                                                                     Page 14 has further references to  the Property which frankly when you are reading a report dealing with Uniroyal/Lanxess  is confusing, possibly intentionally so. This page also seems to be nitpicking a bit when it states that UA1 and UA3 (Upper Aquifer 1 & 3) either disappears or pinches out. At the same time they do confirm that "...there is a sand layer at OW184-5 that corresponds to the UA (Upper Aquifer). The UA is present beneath the Property (i.e. Stroh) at monitoring well OW188, but it is not associated with the same gravel deposits near Canagagigue Creek." I suspect that while they are admitting that the Upper Aquifer on both sides of the property line between Lanxess and Stroh are contaminated (by Uniroyal), they are trying to set the stage for a lack of migration of these contaminants to the Canagagigue Creek  which seems highly unlikely. Also of great interest is that this page actually states in the text that "...the Surficial Aquifer (SA), is present in the extreme north-east corner of the Site and northwest corner of the Property. This is a huge admission and one that both Conestoga Rovers (CRA) and GHD have either avoided or hidden for decades in their monthly Progress Reports and elsewhere. The presence of this polluted aquifer (SA) on both Lanxess and Stroh property is yet another pathway besides overland gravity flow from Uniroyal/Lanxess property to the Stroh farm.                                                                                .....................................................................                                                                                                      Page 15 also clarifys the SA as it states that "The SA pinches out and is likely the source of the wet land present at the toe of the slope of this hill. The SA extends east on to the Property and is present at the OW180 monitoring wells nest. Further east, the ground surface elevation decreases, and a thick (6 m) layer of  sand and gravel and gravel is preset." Notice the last word in the quotation is "preset". It should be "present" and is just one more error. The SA also pinches out on the Stroh property and was likely the most direct source of vegetative stress to the corn and soybeans long grown in that field beside Uniroyal Chemical.                                                                                                                             ................................................                                                                                                                        Typographical and other errors continue on Page 16. Basically the writers of the report have confused the names of the aquifers being shown in Figures 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12 and 6.13 .They refer to UA1 when it should be SA and then ML (Municipal Lower) when it should be UA . They then appear to ignore Figures 6.12 and 6.13 which indicate the ML aquifer. This ongoing amateur hour writing occurred back in CRA's day as well and to me indicates a lack of professional editing and or simply nobody really cares because all serious and hard hitting citizen criticism is gone.                                      ...........................................................................                                                                                             My last point today is the revelation that in 1991 monitoring well OW7-29 had a NDMA concentration of 8,987 parts per billion (ppb) or ug/l. This well is on the Uniroyal/Lanxess property in their north-east corner right beside the Stroh farm. While over the decades I have seen some horrendous NDMA concentrations in the 1-3 thousand parts per billion area, this concentration is a prizewinner regardless of where it was taken or how deep below ground i.e. 29 metres or approx. 95 feet. Keep in mind that the ODWS is a tiny .009 ppb.   

No comments:

Post a Comment