FMOW, Cambridge East Water Supply Project 1994.. MOE responds( please read agm’s comments very closely!!!)

By  | May 11, 2010 | 0 Comments | Filed under: Cambridge's Dirty Drinking Water

RMOW , Cambridge East Water Supply Project June 1994 , Associated Engineering

I’m including the complete report name because I can hardly believe what I’ve been reading for the last few hours and there are errors in the text; and I’ve never before seen a report that indicates such a vast array of chemical detections, albeit at low concentrations, in a single drinking well . This is the nightmare I’ve had for years, that the reality is , that like the air we breathe, our groundwater has literally dozens of different solvents, pesticides and contaminants in it. Region of Waterloo water staff – you must either respond or else start packing and make a run for it. Tell me I’m wrong but this report in Table 1, page C-39 says that well P11 (near Ciba- Geigy) has 14 Cloroaromatics, 6 Chlorophenols, 33 Pesticides and PCB’s, 13 Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons, 9 Specific Pesticides, 29 Volatiles and 1 Other Organics (NDMA) for a total of 105 different chemicals in it !
Some perspective: The Method Detection Limits are much lower in this report than in the Region of Waterloo’s on line Annual Reports (water) , thus making detections of chemicals more likely. Also , with the exception of NDMA, all the other chemical detections are below either the M.O.E. drinking water standards or the Region’s goals, where these standards exist and are included in Table 1. Well P11 is part of the Pinebush well system and is one of the systems which does have some enhanced treatment including anthracite coal.
Regardless of these perspectives I am completely stunned. Region of Wateroo, I normally have very little patience for your excuses , and I know what I’m reading , but this seems insane, and I’m looking right at it. I’m serious, please respond here in this forum within twenty-four hours . I do not want to be the cause of panic , including my own, so I hope that you have something to say above and beyond your usual nonsense about it’s OK if it’s below drinking water standards. AGM

—– Original Message —–
From: Nancy Kodousek
To: ‘debbie_vitez@rogers.com’
Cc: ‘phil.shewen@ene.gov.on.ca’
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:58 PM
Subject: FW: Region of Waterloo – response to email inquiry

In response to your recent post concerning 1994 water quality testing, the Region would like to provide some clarification. Your interpretation that a long list of chemical parameters was detected in the testing is incorrect. For each of the parameters that you are noting, a value is shown in the table preceded by a less than sign (for example <.05) . As is explained at the end of the table, this < means “below detectable limit”. This would be read as a non-detect as it is below the detectable limit. None of the parameters that you are noting were detected. The table does show that the Region of Waterloo went beyond the testing required by the Province of Ontario to confirm water quality.

If you require any results or information, the easiest way to get it is to request it. A phone call or email to me is sufficient.

I or another member of our staff would also be pleased to meet with you and discuss any of your water related concerns.

Hope this clarifies and explains the information on the table you were quoting and look forward to hearing from you.

Nancy Kodousek

Director – Water Services

**

agm May 7th, 2010 11:03 pm 

Nancy Kodousek M.O.E.: First off, I appreciate the twenty- four hour turnaround time. That is appreciated. I notice quite clearly, as you have indicated, that at the end of Table 1, Appendix C, page C-63 there is the following < sign which means “below detectable limit “. Your difficulty arises now from two problems. The first problem is that there is NOT a < sign in front of the numerical value , beside each of the 105 detected organic chemical parameters, and your second problem , at least at first blush, is that you didn’t bother to find this report , look up the table and page number and then confirm or deny the accuracy of my claim. You are however correct in stating that in this table the Region went way beyond the absolutely minimal requirements of the Province of Ontario.
So I’m not quite sure how to interpret your response. Have you made an honest mistake? Do you actually have a reasonable and logical answer to the apparent detection of over 100 organic chemicals in one of your drinking wells? If so, then why tell me there is a < sign before the numeric value, under well P11, when I’ve got the report right in front of me, right now, as I’m typing this? Am I to interpret your response as some kind of a bluff or did you simply assume I don’t know what I’m doing and therefore no need to seriously look up the data? Again although I do appreciate your turnaround time, I’ve got to say that not in a million years did I expect your non answer. Please look up this report and examine it carefully.

**

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 9:58 AM
From:
To:
“‘Debbie Vitez'” <debbie_vitez@rogers.com>
Message contains attachments
1 File (2099KB)

cambridge-east-water-supply-project

For clarification, the related section from the report on the Cambridge East Water Supply Project is attached.

The Region is also confirming that the parameters listed in Table 1 for well P11 are non -detect.  

If you require any results or information, the easiest way to get it is to request is. A phone or email to me is sufficient.

 

Regards,

 

Nancy Kodousek

Director – Water Services

Region of Waterloo

T: 519-575-4447

Facebooktwittergoogle_plus
cwalsh@assisting4u.net'

About 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Archives