MORE CRITICISM OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF BURIED DRUMS IN GUELPH

I posted twice here a little over a week ago regarding the investigation of the buried drums found during the Paisley Clythe Watermain construction in Guelph. My comments then centred on both air emissions and a lack of groundwater monitoring. The lack of groundwater monitoring is a blatant deal breaker. I expressed skepticism fairly early on that an alleged lack of ability to find groundwater seemed unlikely. The fact is that I was correct. I must conclude that the failure/refusal to do groundwater monitoring was intentional and purposeful. It would seem likely that the purpose was to be able to claim that the contamination had not spread as well as to be able to maintain the fiction that there was no public health risk.

The text of the November 2014 report by the MMM Group states on pages three, four and five that groundwater was not sampled allegedly because borehole 7 (BH7) was dry and because there was insufficient groundwater accumulation in the test pits to do so. The Test Pit Logs however near the end of the report tell a different story. Test pits 3A, 4 and 5 all had groundwater seepage in them. Test Pit 5 had the infiltration start at 2.0 metres below ground surface and the excavation ended at 2.0 metres below ground surface (mbgs). Test Pit 4 had groundwater seepage start at 2.5 mbgs and the excavation ended at 2.8 mbgs. Test Pit 3A had the following text written on its' Log "Test pit terminated at 2.25 mbgs due to groundwater seepage into bottom of test pit."

I am hard pressed not to suggest that this is either bogus or a coverup. I have read far too many technical reports over the decades, albeit not from these consultants, to be shocked by what appears to be a serious avoidance of the truth.