THE LONG TERM DNAPL COVERUP ON THE CHEMTURA (LANXESS) SITE

The first public discussions at UPAC (Uniroyal Public Advisory Committee) concerning DNAPLS (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) took place in late 1992. Frank Rovers of Conestoga Rovers, consultants to Uniroyal, admitted that DNAPLS were ubiquitous throughout the Uniroyal property, in the sub-surface. That said he then pontificated that they could never all be completely found or removed and hence even attempting to do so was a waste of money. This position was contradicted by both Wilf Ruland on behalf of APTE as well as by Dave Belanger (Region of Waterloo) and Bob Hillier (hydrogeologist with the Ministry of Environment). These discussions were written up in the K-W Record by Bob Burtt on both December 1 and 7, 1992.

Another article appeared in the Record written by Bob Burtt on December 11/92 in which Susan Bryant of APTE stated "DNAPL is the most serious environmental problem at Uniroyal.". Dave Ireland of the Ontario M.O.E. stated that DNAPLS were in both the Upper Aquifer (UA) as well as in the Municipal Upper Aquifer (MU).

Around January 14, 1993 the Record carried another article in which the Ontario M.O.E. advised that Uniroyal were out of compliance with their Control Order as they had failed to submit a proper and complete DNAPL Report on time. There was considerable back and forth on this because Uniroyal claimed that there were ongoing discussions and debates between Conestoga Rovers (CRA) and hydrogeologists for APTE, M.O.E. and the Region of Waterloo. Essentially all parties except Uniroyal and their consultants were opposed to the position taken and technical statements in the Dames & Moore DNAPL report.

All of this is of interest as basically as we have learned, politics trumps science every single day of the week up here in Woolwich Township. Even Frank Rovers of CRA in 1992 was quoted as saying that DNAPL cleanup "might be possible in the future.". Well guess what? That was 25 years ago and certainly DNAPL cleanup is not only more technically feasible now but it is long recognized as being necessary to every extent possible. This was the strong position of Drs. Cherry and Parker (U. of Waterloo) in the January 2007 meeting that Susan Bryant, Pat McLean, Wilf Ruland and I attended. Two of those three chose to suppress that result to the best of their abilities including getting me kicked off CPAC by a very ignorant and hopeless Woolwich Council (less Ruby Weber). Strange how with NO contradictory evidence those parties have so changed their tunes on DNAPLS over the years. With Pat & Susan could that have had anything to do with self-interest versus public interest?