MOE/MECP HAVE LOTS OF SERIOUS CRITICISMS OF LANXESS/GHD COPC & CSM BUT NO WHERE ENOUGH BACKBONE TO TELL THEM THEY'RE DONE AND IT'S OVER

CSM - Conceptual Site Model. COPC - Contaminants of Poterntial Concern. ...................................................................................................................... The 24 page report of back and forth Comments and Responses while highly illuminating is not however confidence building. Clearly all the errors, omissions and lack of clarity by GHD as expressed in this report indicates a consulting company and client who are going throught the motions and are expecting little to no pushback. In fact there are a couple of responses by GHD/Lanxess that indicate some frustration with the MOE/MECP trying to hold them accountable for their work. Poor babies. ........................................................................................................ Criticisms include using the shovel method versus a proper core sampler to collect sediment samples, insufficient background data sets to determine COPCs as well as suspect background locations such as Bolender Park Landfill being used. This landfill accepted Uniroyal Chemical as well as other local industrial/chemical wastes during the 1960s and should not be used as an alleged upstream background sampling point. Also one of my biggest complaints was the elevated Method Detection Limits (MDL) used in analysing sediment samples. When the MDL exceeds health criteria then far too many samples are listed as Non-Detect (ND) when in fact they may very likely exceed the health criteria for either aquatic organisms or human health exposure. The MOE/MECP also repeatedly emphasized and argued with Lanxess etc. that the Magnitude of Exceedance of a sampled compund needs to be considered as part of the frequency of exceeding a standard. In other words the criteria for accepting a compound as a Contaminant of Potential Concern should not rely on solely the frequency of detection but also on high high the magnitude of the exceedance is. Lanxess/GHD did not appear terribly happy with that idea or frankly any ideas/opinions that might increase their scoping/reducing of the eventual cleanup of the creek. ...................................................................................................................... The MECP also took Lanxess to task for their "typographical" error in claiming attribution to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a 5% frequency of detection as a screening limit to eliminate toxic compounds for further investigation. In my opinion Lanxess and their predecessors have never made "typographical" or other "errors" to their detriment only to their advantage over the decades. Also using part of the Shirt Factory Creek where it exists on the Uniroyal/Lanxess property as a Background reading was appropriately criticized. Real typos existed regarding GHD inaccurately quoting Table C.3 repeatedly rather than Tables C.1 and C.2. Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) results appear not to have been properly considered by Lanxess/GHD. ............................................................................................................................ One huge discussion etc. revolved around on-site failures of hydraulic containment allowing toxic discharge into the Canagagigue Creek. Lanxess and friends have proposed what I view to be as a ridiculous and outrageous claim namely that Toluene for example needs to be at a concentration of 100,000 parts per million or higher in order to work as a co-solvent for other organic compounds (DDT, dioxins, PCBs etc.). While I'd like to see some scientific literature to back that up, it also likely is a phony argument in the first place. Toluene has been floating as a free phase LNAPL on top of the water table for decades at Uniroyal. The LNAPL stands for Light Non Aqueous Phase Liquid and certainly exceeds 100,00 ppm. THis LNAPL 9Toluene) was discharged for decades directly into the creek via groundwater prior to any on-site containment (1997). ...................................................................................................................... These comments go on and on yet there seems to be no final straw, no conclusion that this report is fatally flawed. This is the problem with all these reports, "investigations" etc. They presuppose being accepted no matter what errors, falsehoods or omissions they contain. Everyone involved assumes the bulls.it the reports contain will never result in it being refused acceptance. And they never are. What a pathetic joke.