DNAPLS & DIOXINS/FURANS & DDT

Several years ago we were having a discussion at CPAC with Jeff Merriman of Chemtura Canada about DNAPLS. This was back during the time when both Woolwich council appointed/anointed citizens (i.e. voting CPAC members) as well as the unwashed masses (general public) could publicly ask questions of either CPAC members, Uniroyal/Chemtura or the Ontario MOE/MECP. I do not recall at this moment whether I was a formal voting member at the time or not.

I suggested to Mr. Merriman that according to the definition of DNAPLS (Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquids) that dioxins and DDT were both DNAPL chemicals. Mr. Merriman got very upset and forcefully insisted that no, dioxins/furans as well as DDT and its breakdown products were totally separate and needed to be treated as such.

Some of the defining characteristics of DNAPLs include low solubility, a density greater than water (i.e. 1.0), and an ability to flow in the subsurface under the force of gravity. Also by definition most (not all) DNAPLS were chlorinated solvents such as chlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, chlorophenols etc. Well, dioxins are indeed chlorinated solvents such as tetra chlorordibenzopdioxin or TCDD. The most potent is designated as 2,3,7,8 TCDD.

DDT is also a chlorinated solvent referred to as Dichlorodiphenoltrichloroethane. Chlorine molecules are very heavy and well in excess of the 1.0 density requirement. This density requirement is what enables them to sink below the water table as they are denser.

Mr. Merriman's claim was based upon these chemicals being hydrophobic or in other words they had an affinity to bind with soil particles versus dissolving in ground or surface water. This of course has long been the excuse for not looking for them more rigorously in either ground or surface water on their Elmira property. The big problem of course is that they have been tested for in water on a few occasions and guess what: there they are albeit at low concentrations. Whether or not they are perfectly dissolved versus being attached to microscopic soil particles in the water is at best an academic exercise. The fact is that they are there and hence they are mobilized and spreading.

The other relevant point is that dioxins and DDT are readily dissolved in solvents and hence readily mobile. This contaminated Elmira property is loaded with solvents particularly in the groundwater and now less so, concentration wise, in the Canagagigue Creek. Nevertheless these solvents have always aided and abetted the dissolution (dissolving) of even hydrophobic compounds into ground and surface water.

It seems clear to me and others that dioxins and DDT have long been available to both ground and surface water and hence have travelled far and wide. Dioxins in both the Canagagigue Creek and in carp downstream of the mouth of the Creek with the Grand River are but part of the evidence.

I believe that CPAC members and the public were being fed yet another dose of junk science, psuedo science and "cargo cult " science.