DELEGATION #5 GOING TO WOOLWICH COUNCIL NEXT TUESDAY

This coming Tuesday at 7 pm. I will be bringing my fifth Delegation to Council regarding methane gas risks from the Bolender Park Landfill. More specifically my message has been that the methodology and monitoring of methane gas has been inadequate and in contravention of standard, professional landfill gas management. Each and every Delegation has carefully and specifically focused on different areas and aspects of the problem. I have been successful in raising new and disturbing facts and issues with each Delegation. This Tuesday I will be bringing up yet another different but very important aspect of the consultant's reports done on behalf of Woolwich Township since 1983. The title should be on tomorrow afternoon's on-line Council Agenda and is titled "Scientific literature regarding surface water acting as a barrier to sub-surface methane migration".

Another local, resident coined a phrase years ago that I have never forgotten. It was in reference to Conestoga Rovers' penchant for discovering alleged scientific rationales for some of their more egregious attempts to defend indefensible actions or non-actions by their client, Uniroyal Chemical. Dr. Henry Regier was known to occasionally use the terms "psuedo science" or "junk science". This past colleague and friend I believe coined the expression "adjusting the science according to your needs". It was that obvious even to a person with zero technical, mathematical or science based training past intermediate high school.

Literally for decades I and others have debunked nonsense coming from Uniroyal /Chemtura's consultants. Whether the original destruction of Morrison & Beatty's nuetral scientific impartiality concerning the 1% DNAPL Solubility Rule back in very early 1990s or the Region's consultants suggesting that DNAPL soil samples were taken by CRA in the most unlikely places to actually find DNAPLS; this junk science has been with us for a long time. Other examples include information regarding effective solubilities of DNAPL chemicals versus lab solubilities. In fact that was an issue that was actually avoided if not intentionally covered up by Uniroyal's consultants. Afterall it's easier to say that there is no free phase DNAPL present in an aquifer if you are comparing groundwater concentrations as a percentage of a solubilty say of 400,000 parts per billion rather than the true, effective solubility of chlorobenzene in a mixture of multiple chemicals in groundwater. Therefore if the effective solubility in water is reduced to perhaps 225,000 parts per billion (ppb) then a much reduced concentration of chlorobenzene in groundwater will exceed the standard one percent Solubility Rule.

In the current case it is possible that CRA/GHD actually have some legitimate science behind their claims that surface water prevents sub-surface methane gas migration. Based upon CRA's past history I am doubtful. The proof is in the pudding. Show us what you've got.