Monday, April 16, 2018

STATION 20 & THE LANXESS SITE RESULTS ALONG THE CREEK




Last Saturday I posted about the Soil and Sediment results at Northfield Drive and then upstream to the east side of New Jerusalem Rd. and then Station 21 immediately on the west side of New Jerusalem Rd. We continue westwards to Station 20 which is just a couple of hundred metres downstream of the Lanxess site. Lastly we examine the Soil and Sediment results on both sides and in the bottom of the creek as it travels north to south through the Lanxess property.

Station 20 covers an area at least 800 metres in length. Although the first four sample locations are all bunched together at the extreme north-west corner of this stretch, the last four sample locations are all well spaced and well apart as they head downstream towards Station 21. There were a total of 115 exceedances of criteria (both DDT & Dioxins) in the Soil samples and 77 results which were below the Table 8 criteria for Lanxess's defined COCs (Contaminants of Concern ie. DDT & metabolytes plus Dioxins/Furans). A total of 192 Soil samples were taken at this location.

For Sediments at Station 20 we had 137 exceedances for both COCs and 227 results which were either below criteria for Dioxins or non-detect in large part due to the Detection Limit exceeding the criteria for DDT, DDD and DDE. This was a total of 364 samples taken from this location. Strangely even with very high TEQ (Dioxin) results at the upstream end of Station 20 sampling there were even higher results downstream past the discharge from the Stroh Drain which Lanxess, GHD and the Ontario M.O.E. are desperately trying to ignore. This is especially so for DDT and its' metabolytes.

Interestingly the Lanxess site had "only" 69 Soil sample exceedances and 219 results below either the criteria or the Detection Limit. Regarding Sediments there were 60 exceedances of criteria and 112 results either below the criteria or below the Detection Limits. This is interesting as allegedly this site is the source of everything downstream all the way to the Grand River. Intellectually that is correct of course as all the production of DDT (insecticide) and 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (herbicides) took place on the west side of the Canagagigue Creek. Also there has been past efforts to clean up the creekbanks along the Uniroyal/Chemtura site which should have lowered DDT and Dioxin detections.

There were however two pipelines in full throttle taking these liquid wastes across the creek and pumping them up to the east side ponds namely RPE1-5. Drums full of liquid toxic wastes were also buried on the east side in RPE-5, BAE-1, RB1 & 2 along Uniroyal Chemical's east side border with the Stroh farm. It has long been apparent from the lower concentrations of these contaminants in the soils near the creek on the east side that some sort of diversion took place. Uniroyal/Chemtura have long claimed that all liquids flowed west & south from these pits and ponds, none east. That has now been disproven courtesy of myself and CPAC. Furthermore Uniroyal's refusal with Ministry of Environment acceptance to put any hydraulic containment in the shallow aquifers on the east side of the creek also indicated that they had "solved" the east side liquid waste problem privately and dare I say surrepticiously.

The extent of this environmental disaster here in southern Ontario is grotesque. Now watch the Mickey Mouse remediation plans which come forward. In this province it is not polluter pays. It is polluter pretends to pay while hiding behind the Ontario Ministry of Environment.

6 comments:

  1. One positive in reading this and former posts is that they GHD have taken a tremendous number of samples in these locations as well as the previous locations and at considerable cost to whom I don't know yet. As for the future remediation plans, I guess it will be interesting in knowing again where, how many, how deep sampled, what criteria will be analysed and who pays for the next step AND most of all a timeframe for completion. I think in fairness to Lanxess, it would be interesting to also know what they have paid so far for all these cleanups and any if any the taxpayer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Ontario taxpayers have been paying half of the off-site cleanup (ie. Elmira Aquifers) since 1998. I believe that is somewhere in the $30 million range to date and still going.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How through MOECC's budget? Hard to believe that and yet Lanxess pays the Consultant to do the work. Something is missing here from my experience.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes through the M.O.E.. This is based upon the 1991 Control Order and the Sweetheart Deal which ended the Environmental Appeal Board (E.A.B.) Hearings in Elmira. By agreeing to pay half the off-site groundwater costs (ie. Elmira Aquifers) the M.O.E. got Uniroyal to drop their appeal of the 91 Control Order. This appeal was via the E.A.B..

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok now I am confused. Creek bank soil and in creek sediment remediation versus groundwater remediation are entirely different So does the 1991 Control Order cover everything?

    ReplyDelete
  6. No it doesn't. It allegedly covers "known" contamination as of 1991. Theoretically we didn't know about the creek contamination at that point.

    ReplyDelete