OLD TRICKS CONTINUE FOR UNIROYAL/LANXESS CONSULTANTS

Today's post relates to the one done on October 1/20 describing Cynthia Doughty's critique of Lanxess and GHD on behalf of the Ontario MOE/MECP. Ms. Doughty referred to GHD's ongoing written claims that NDMA and other toxins' concentrations are attenuated with depth. Unfortunately GHD are very short of empirical evidence to back up their claims. I can hear them now debating with Cynthia: ... Lou: "See up here at the north end of the border between Lanxess and Stroh the contaminant concentrations are higher in the top 15 cm. than anywhere else". Cynthia: "Oh you took soil samples below that 15 cm. depth?" Lou: "We have zero results below 15 cm. in depth". Cynthia: "Then how do you know that contaminant concentrations decrease with depth?" Lou: "Come on! Zero is less than any of the numbers we have above 15 cm." ................................................................................................. Secondly Ms. Doughty accused GHD of using groundwater elevation levels and hence determining groundwater flow directions by readings obtained from groundwater wells that are screened across multiple hydrostratigraphic units. These groundwater levels for example obtained by a well screened in both the Upper Aquifer and the Municipal Upper Aquifer would give an elevation reading much higher than nearby wells screened solely in say the Municipal Aquifer. These false readings then can be used by fools or unscrupuless consultants to save their clients money. CRA may have done so with a well (CH 44?) on the Nutrite property decades ago which showed that groundwater levels on the south-west side were higher thasn on the Uniroyal site and thus Uniroyal's contaminated groundwater was not leaking on to their neighbour's property. It of course was false but saved Uniroyal money in much lower groundwater pumping costs. ................................................................................................................. Similarily during the Ammonia Treatment System (ATS) discussions I determined that one well (CH97) of a pair of matched wells (one on site and one just off-site) was drawing both Upper Aquifer and Municipal Upper water into it thus elevating the groundwater levels recorded. This again was the consultant guaranteeing that higher off-site groundwater levels than on-site "proved" hydraulic containment of the on-site aquifers. What a crock! .............................................................................................................. There are numerous tricks ansd scams that consultants can pull likely in all disciplines. Honesty and Integrity may be priceless but Dishonesty and a lack of Integrity all have their price.