THE DNAPL COVERUP CONTINUES TO THIS DAY - THANK YOU ALLAN DEAL (GHD) & LANXESS

 

Who can remember all the lies and carefully maintain them over decades? Certainly Allan Deal is having difficulties. He was stumbling, misstating and confusing truth and lies during his alleged "Chlorobenzene Source Evaluation".  He repeatedly conflated the word "chlorobenzene" with chlorinated solvents. Granted even some of his text up on the screen also seemed to be having troubles using the two words consistently or appropriately. Very strange. At 1:01:49 of the Township's on-line video of last week's TRAC meeting chlorobenzene is conflated with chlorinated solvents both verbally and in writing up on the screen. Also this was supposed to be a "Chlorobenzene Source Evaluation" not a chlorinated solvents source evaluation. Two DIFFERENT things. 

Mr. Deal predicted that chlorobenzene in our aquifers would be mostly O.K. by 2028. More bull as his "asymptotic" nonsense presentation told us that chlorobenzene in the Municipal Upper aquifer was at an average concentration of 123 ppb. and in the Municipal Lower aquifer at 173 ppb. The standard or criteria is 80 ppb. Three and a half years won't make much difference.

Mr. Deal stated in response to a question about off-site DNAPLS that there were none in the off-site MU (Municipal Upper).  Nice deflection as they likely started in the shallow Upper Aquifer and likely have migrated downwards. Well W8 on the Yara property is likely affected by DNAPL chlorobenzene. W4 near the Howard St. water tower was affected by DNAPLS for years  and Mr. Deal nearly blew it when he stated that after that pumping well was turned off it didn't have it's concentrations rebound at all. He made it sound as if either he was expecting rebound or that he was surprised that it hadn't. That is true because he knows that pumping well W4 was located right there exactly to pump out the dissolved from DNAPL chlorobenzene earlier found in well OW57-32  

Finally Allan Deal fudged again . The e-mail sent out with the Revised Agenda had page 30 marked as THANK YOU and page 31 marked as "Isotope Sample Analysis". The Figure presented shows five different wells all screened in the deeper aquifers (MU, ML) and sampled for MCB - monochlorobenzene  the same thing as chlorobenzene. The funny thing is that well OW-41  from the Varnicolor Chemical site allegedly has 580 ppb chlorobenzene in it!  The point this page and Figure are making is that Isotope Analysis isn't clear enough to prove or disprove other sources of chlorobenzene.

Here however is the point . This page (31) was not presented to TRAC eight days ago. It was left off. No wonder! Mr. Deal was attempting to blame all the hydrocarbons and solvents in Varnicolor's deep aquifers (MU) on them by falsely saying upgradient Uniroyal Chemical didn't handle any of them. That has since been disproven. So by Mr. Deal's logic MW-41 on the Varnicolor site having chlorobenzene in it must have come from Varnicolor just like the other listed chlorinated solvents on their site.

So which is it folks? Did Varnicolor dump chlorobenzene on their site along with the rest of their massive dumping or did the chlorobenzene come from Uniroyal ?  Did Mr. Deal attempt a misdirection by avoiding page 31 that he sent out initially after he saw that it undermined his and the MECP's theory of  no chlorobenzene at Varnicolor AND it also undermined his theory that the chlorinated solvents in the MU below Varnicolor came from Varnicolor not the upgradient Uniroyal/Lanxess?  How about the possibility that the free phase DNAPL by the Howard St. water tower gravity flowed from  the former Borg Textiles.? Yes that's the same Borg Textiles that Allan Deal couldn't find chlorobenzene, chlorinated solvents or anything else at despite their former on-site dye shop . All in all yet another confused and confusing presentation riddled with errors and inconsistencies.