Friday, April 6, 2018

DDT & METABOLYTES SERIOUSLY UNDERSTATED IN SEDIMENTS OF CANAGAGIGUE CREEK



My reading of the large 2017 Sediment/Soil & Floodplain 2017 Canagagigue Creek report continues. I am going line by line through the eleven Tables (hundreds of pages). I have found that the Tables dealing with Sediments (versus Soils) appear to be the most egregious in terms of page after page of nothing but Non-Detects. This is egregious because the Method Detection Limit (MDL) is from 20 to 40 parts per billion (ppb) whereas the Table 8 criteria for 2,4 + 4,4 DDT is 7 ppb, DDD is 8 ppb and DDE is 5 ppb. Therefore any hits of total DDT from below the criteria (7) up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. will show up as ND (.02). Similarly total DDD hits will not register from one up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. despite the Table 8 criteria stating that 8 ppb. is the maximum allowable. This is a farce! Finally total DDE detections/hits from one up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. depending on the MDL of that particular sample also will not register as detections but only show up in the Tables as either ND (.02) or ND (.03) or ND (.04) all in parts per million (ppm). This is the same as 20, 30 or 40 parts per billion (ppb.). This folks is how you minimize and downgrade the overall extent of your client's pollution without out and out lying. You simply hide it in the numbers.

Of course from 1991 until late 2014 informed citizens such as myself, Dr. Henry Regier, Richard Clausi, Esther Thur and others plus Ron Campbell, Graham Chevreau, Dr. Dan Holt, David Marks and more could confront Conestoga Rovers and Uniroyal/Crompton, Chemtura etc. at public meetings and demand that they explain these anomalies. This often would take back and forth discussion and every now and then it would turn out that the polluter and their apologists actually had some logical reason for whatever we had found peculiar. Many times they did not at which point they raised red herrings and attempted to deflect and distract. With this report and the current murder of public consultation here in Woolwich Township, I and others are left with no choice but to believe that Lanxess and their consultant GHD are simply deceptive filth of the highest order. Afterall we can't ask them polite questions as we did until October 2014. Lest we forget Sandy and Council, even Jeff Merriman (Chemtura) verbally confirmed at that October 2014 penultimate public meeting that I was being polite and respectful but that he simply disapproved of what he called an interrogation. When he did so I told him that I was trying to be polite about it and he agreed in front of everyone that I was.

I have gone through pages 17 to the top 1/4 of page 19 and attempted to verify the number of exceedances stated in the text for "Semi-Volatiles" (ie.DDD, DDE & DDT) in the Soil and Sediments at various locations in the creek. I have also attempted to confirm Dioxin and Furan readings in the Tables with what the text says. There are a number of exceedances in the text with which my count in the Tables is very close. However I have also found three counts of mine which were higher than those of GHD. One of mine was lower. Even more interesting is that the text for some peculiar reason rarely mentions exceedances of the criteria for 2,4 + 4,4 DDD. They range from a low of four Soil exceedances at the Northfield Dr. sampling locations to 30 Soil exceedances and 32 Sediment exceedances at the New Jerusalem Rd and Station 21 locations. Intentional omission or not this greatly reduces the perception of the number of criteria exceedances in the creek by this Uniroyal Chemical produced herbicide. I will report further unmentioned exceedances in the text as I find them.

5 comments:

  1. Late answering but a number of questions stands out in my mind after reading this and that is What now? Who pays? Will it ever go down to the Grand confluence? How much sediment gets removed? Who prioritizes where and what gets done? And I think I will stop there as I am getting a headache wondering what I should ask next. Good luck is all I can say for a sad state of affairs environmentally.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's already down to the Grand and past. Jigs Hollow Rd. nearby has some Floodplain sampling I haven't gotten into yet. Also carp in the Grand downriver from Canagagigue Creek have 2,3,7,8 TCDD (Dioxin) in them courtesy of Uniroyal Chemical and the Canagagigue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Carp could have picked that up anywhere upstream, downstream or the creek itself. They are bottom feeders. Keep on reading and save me some time please. My previous questions still remain a priority though.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The only known source of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in the Grand River in Waterloo Region is Uniroyal Chemical.Thank goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Carp don't just swim in Waterloo Region was my point. I am sure there are all those chemicals in the many tributaries s to the Grand River and the main Grand itself upstream of the Elmira confluence with the Canagagigue. I still think the whole issue is how much is removed, who will pay, when if ever it will get done and whether anyone cares after this report was done.

    ReplyDelete