BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS COURTESY OF YAHOOS WITH CREDENTIALS

BBB Courtesy YWC

Currently we are up to six documents dealing with or relevant to the probable DNAPLS found at OW57-32R by the Elmira Howards St. water tower in 1998. The dates of these are:

May 1998
June 1998
June 2012
August 29, 2012
September 26, 2012
October 31, 2012 There is a seventh document which we have never been
provided and that would be the Peritus Environmental document
of March 2012.


Generally these documents are inconsistent both within themselves and with each other. Conestoga Rovers are responsible for May & June 1998 as well as June 2012, August 29/12 and September 26/12. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment can take discredit for the October 31/12 document.

In May 1998 CRA give us technical reasons why they believe it could be free phase DNAPL 100 feet below ground at the bottom of the Municipal Aquifer against the Municipal Aquitard. In June 1998 they drop one of the pieces of evidence (odours) from the mix and only address one of the remaining namely an iridescent sheen. Allegedly dissolved Chlorobenzene caused the sheen which is nonsense. Their report is riddled with typographical as well as technical errors including petroleum hydrocarbon contamination thousands of times higher than the figures they publish.

In the June 2012 Progress Report CRA advises that Peritus Environmental detected Chlorobenzene and petroleum hydrocarbons in nearby well CH70D in the Municipal Lower Aquifer. I pointed this out at the July public CPAC meeting. Jeff Merriman of Chemtura takes verbal dispute with the data which his own consultant (CRA) has written about and confirmed with their own testing.

On August 29/12 CRA produce a Memorandum which allegedly proves themselves wrong twice, namely in May and June 1998. Now they say there isn't free phase DNAPL but the iridescent sheen was caused by an "oopsy". Some unknown character allegedly spilled a petroleum hydrocarbon into the mud recirculation tank causing the sheen. No mention is made of most of the other evidence of DNAPLS. They also inaccurately claim that there is no evidence of other sources of chlorobenzene other than Chemtura and inaccurately claim that petroleum hydrocarbons have not been found in nearby wells. These petroleum hydrocarbons are what routinely produce iridescent sheens on water.

On September 26/12 CRA produce a document alleging that because GC/MS is superior to GC-FID chemical analysis, therefore BOTH they and Peritus Environmental were in error in detecting BOTH Chlorobenzene and petroleum hydrocarbons in well CH70D a few months earlier. One thing I agree with is that CRA do indeed make lots of errors. This document is inconsistent within the text in regards to stating that yes there are volatile organics found namely BTEX chemicals which are petroleum hydrocarbons and then turning around and saying that Chlorobenzene is the only compound found. Further the chromatographs included also clearly indicate BOTH Chlorobenzene and petroleum hydrocarbons present.

Finally we get to the M.O.E.'s (Jaimie Connolly) October 31/12 two page letter. It agrees with CRA's "oopsy" defence regarding the iridescent sheen but ignores virtually all the other factors and evidence except the elevated Chlorobenzene groundwater concentrations. No mention of odours, stained soil cuttings, petroleum hydrocarbons, location at the bottom of the Municipal aquifer etc.. What kind of scientific document picks and chooses which evidence to address and which to ignore virtually to the point of not even acknowledging its' existence? Jaimie claims with virtually zero technical references , backup or literature that acetone increases the solubility of Chlorobenzene and that acetone readily degrades in groundwater. He also claims there is no evidence of other sources of Chlorobenzene nearby which I have disproven via both Canviro and Golder Reports and more of Chlorobenzene being discovered in Woolwich storm drains running between Borg Textiles and Varnicolor Chemical.

Tests undertaken by CRA several years back attempted to prove that acetone could act as a co-solvent with MBT (mercaptobenzothiazole) and thus increase it's solubility. MBT similar to Dioxins and DDT, while less hydrophobic, nevertheless has a very low solubility and is allegedly a solid at aquifer temperatures. These tests were problematic with MBT and were NOT taken with Chlorobenzene yet Jaimie attempts to rely on them for backing.

Simply put Jaimie and the M.O.E.s position is ridiculous. They are attempting to back the position of Conestoga Rovers who readily admit a number of their own positions have been wrong. These documents are illogical, inconsistent and unscientific. As far as I am concerned these six documents (& 1 missing one) actually support the probability of free phase DNAPL being found at OW57-32R. CRA's own plume maps over a period of years show elevated Chlorobenzene concentrations present at that location in both the Municipal Upper and Lower Aquifers. The serious attempt by all guilty parties to bury this issue forever also reflect very badly on their credibility. Finally Eric Hodgins of the Region of Waterloo, under pressure made an interesting comment. We don't need to look for off-site DNAPLS. The more we pump and shrink the plumes, the more obvious off-site source areas will become. THEN we'll go after them. Thank you Eric Hodgins , RMOW, for being the first to speak honestly to the public.