PUTTING IT IN PERSPECTIVE

The most important documents dealing with the DNAPL found in May 1998 behind Varnicolor Chemical (& across the street from Borg) are the May and June 1998 Uniroyal Progress Reports as well as CRA's August 29/12, 6 page report. The side issue concerning whether or not petroleum hydrocarbons were found at CH-70D this past spring and summer is exactly that: a side issue. The timing certainly was interesting as it first appeared that both Peritus Environmental as well as Conestoga Rovers had detected petroleum hydrocarbons at this nearby well (on varnicolor's west property line). This of course would undermine CRA's claim that as there were petroleum hydrocarbons found in the drilling mud but allegedly not in nearby wells (groundwater); therefore the petroleum hydrocarbons may have been introduced "inadvertently" at the surface.

I have already commented on CRA's September 26/12, 7 page report suggesting that both Peritus and CRA erred initially in identifying petroleum hydrocarbons. I find that document self serving and logically inconsistent. For example you can't be taken seriously when you say "There are no "fuel type" hydrocarbons in this sample (fig. 4)" and at the same time have identified benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylenes in that same figure. Furthermore you can't state that "GC/MS analysis confirm that chlorobenzene is present in the CH-70D samples and the only compound eluting in the CCME F1 hydrocarbon range." when your own figure clearly shows ethylbenzene eluting (coming off) in the same F1 range as chlorobenzene.

Essentially the message that I am receiving from CRA after the fact is the same one a former CPAC colleague used to advise: "Adjusting the science according to your needs.". That being said I have always had an open mind and am continuing to pursue professional technical chemical advice. That would be of course unbiased and honest technical advice. Both GC FID (flame ionization detector) and GC/MS are well known and well respected analytical methods within the industry. I will be sharing here the professional comments in regards to either the likelihood or even possibility of not once but twice, chlorobenzene being misidentified as petroleum hydrocarbons. Keep in mind whichever way this goes; petroleum hydrocarbons being detected or not at well CH-70D fourteen years after the discovery of DNAPL at OW57-32R, is not the defining issue. If CRA's September 29/12 report is sketchy that would however add weight to the evidence against their position on DNAPL.