PREACHING TO THE CONVERTED/PERVERTED

SUBTITLE: SMOKE & MIRRORS


As mentioned in yesterday's posting I received a 7 page document from Chemtura at the start of Thursday night's CPAC meeting. The author is Alan Deal of Conestoga Rovers. It was dated September 26/12 and titled MEMORANDUM VOC and PHC results from CH-70D Groundwater Samples

This document arises from CRA's June 2012 Chemtura Progress Report in which we are advised that another consultant detected petroleum hydrocarbons in a groundwater sample taken from well CH-70D which is located a few metres west of the old Varnicolor site and perhaps a hundred metres or more east of off-site pumping well W4 and observation well OW57-32R. Jeff Merriman of Chemtura was rapidly, verbally denying the presence of these petroleum hydrocarbons at CPAC before I could see any possible reason why. Well the reason has become clearer.

CRA in denying their own May 1998 Progress Report's findings regarding DNAPL, did so based on the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in their drilling mud recirculation tank. They claimed incorrectly that petroleum hydrocarbons were not found in nearby groundwater including OW57-32R (at a very high Method Detection Limit) and therefore it was possible that oil or another petroleum hydrocarbon was accidentally spilled into the drilling mud. That is ridiculous but when most of your audience including the M.O.E. are in on a 'sweetheart deal" then you can pretty much come up with whatever suits. As a former colleague was known to say "Adjusting the science according to your needs".

Petroleum hydrocarbons whether routinely tested for or not are throughout the Elmira Aquifers. There was free phase LNAPL including but not limited to BTEX chemicals (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene) at both Varnicolor Chemical and Uniroyal Chemical. Both Peritus Environmental AND Conestoga Rovers detected Chlorobenzene and petroleum hydrocarbons at CH-70D in March and June 2012, respectively. Their concentrations and proportions between the two for both samples are very close to each other. Only after yours truly raised the matter at a public CPAC meeting did Chemtura start to deny the undeniable.

CRA's Memorandum gives a discription of two lab methods of determining the identification of chemical parameters. It is interesting, irrelevant and unconvincing. Statements such as "There are no "fuel type" hydrocarbons in this sample." fly in the face of their own detections. Are their arguments all semantics? Are they trying to suggest for example that BTEX chemicals are VOC's (they are) but NOT petroleum hydrocarbons (they are)? Further CRA state that the one lab method (GC/MS) confirms Chlorobenzene is present and is the only compound present (eluting) when their immediate previous paragraph confirmed "A few VOC's are detected at low concentrations but the major peak corresponds to chlorobenzene."

In the vernacular I suggest that CRA are preaching to the perverted, sucking and blowing simultaneously and overall promoting psuedo science. At the very least I expected some sort of apology/explanation as to how two different companies on two different dates came up with basically identical data which is now being denied by the second company (CRA) for what appears to be self serving motives. BIZARRE & UNCONVINCING !