Friday, March 18, 2022

CREEK RISK ASSESSMENT - JUST MORE OF THE SAME DISHONESTY AND DECEIT

I have received the Minutes from the last TAG meeting (February 24/22). Here we have captured TAG's comments to the HHERA (Risk Assessment) presented by Stantec on behalf of Lanxess Canada and GHD their consultants. What an absolute croc of crap. The Risk Assessment that is. TAG have raised a number of legitimate concerns most of which were brushed aside, minimized or dismissed outright by Dr. Knopper of Stantec. I mean hell the poor guy wants to get paid by Lanxess for all his work afterall. .................................................................................................................... TAG are concerned about "dose averaging" of farmer/residents. Stantec determined that they have about 60 days per year of exposure and that is considered "short term exposure". Wow! I just love it when unexposed "experts" tell residents that their exposure is just fine (i.e. "acceptable"). TAG pushed fairly hard regarding the lack of data for the Stroh Drain area and hence a mjor part of the Stroh and Martin properties. Again Stantec/Lanxess have totally unrealistically compared Stroh Drain exposure levels to those of Reaches 1 and 2. Dr. Knopper concluded by strongly advising TAG that Stantec "...are confident in their findings." Findings I might add totally determined by the inadequate sampling of GHD. Inadequate via numbers, location and protocol (shovel vs. core samplers). TAG's concerns regarding fish consumption by the Mennonite community and other key assumptions by Stantec regarding chickens and cattle consumption were also politely brushed aside by Dr. Knopper. Afterall he is the expert explaining high level technical B/S to both lay persons and yes professionals in other fields (biology/hydrogeology/soils etc.). Dr. Knopper assured TAG that restrictions or public advisories were unecessary. ............................................................................................................................ Already high existing body burdens of DDT and dioxins/furans were raised by TAG members. Fortunately for Lanxess, MECP, GHD and Stantec those are all private between the Mennonite residents and their doctors. No health study has ever been done and if our local politicians have anything to say about it, none ever will be. Dr. Knopper emphasized that it's all about what the regulators say are acceptable levels of risk present. Nobody denies the presence of DDT, dioxins and two more; it's all about their alleged exposure to humans and wildlife and hence level of risk. Of course the other 150 chemicals - 4 Contaminants of Potential Concern = 146 allegedly don't provide any risk whatsoever and hence are excluded from consideration. That is a huge parcel of inadulterated horse manure. .................................................................................................................. Susan Bryant (TAG) and Ramin Ansari (Lanxess) had a brief discussion regarding the known "hotspots" in the creek. Ramin did not commit himself to removing them only in re-examining the data. He's concerned about excavating one or two areas and then not knowing how far to go and when to stop. I call BULLSH.T on that. The whole exercise is simply a mathematical attempt to MINIMIZE cleanup and MINIMIZE costs to Lanxess Canada at the expense of both wildlife and human health. As it has been for the last seventy years approximately. ............................................................................................................................................... Susan in writing is suggesting that Lanxess excavating a couple of hotspots along the creek would be acceptable to the community. Of course it would be as long as the intentionally misinformed community believe that those are the only "hotspots" Hardly. Locational sampling bias has been obvious for many years and I've written about it here and at CPAC in 2012-2015. Excavation of two or three "hotspots" is better than nothing but it likely only scratches the surface. The real plan is just to let these toxins continue flowing down the Canagagigue to the Grand River, with or without minor excavation/cleanup.

2 comments:

  1. Is there data to support your last sentence? Most contaminants are buried under mainly vegetated floodplains and rarely would be entrained in controlled flood events by Woolwich Dam. Exposed bank samples and non armoured beds are other sources. And after 30+ years of actual sediment sampling (and consulting since)on large and medium rivers,I feel their/GHD numbers are adequate area wise. Also you make it sound all their sampling was done via a shovel as that sadly applied to a few in situ creek samples. Shovels and cores can be safely and accurately done on floodplains at various depths. And does one realise the field sampling and lab costs associated with every chemical you want analysed? Totally cost prohibitive in my professional Fluvial Geomorpholigist/Sedimentologist opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes shovel use on floodplains may be O.K. however for sampling sediments in the bottom of creeks and rivers they are not. DDT and dioxins etc. stick to fines which a shovel loses as it is raised through the water to the surface.
      There are both depositional and erosional areas in the Canagagigue Creek. The bottom sediments as well as creekbank soils move during heavier flows. Thw Woolwich Dam is mostly an earthen dam (not concrete) and is quickly opened during heavy rains etc. The downstream creek floods badly as I've seen numerous times with my own eyes.
      The most egregious liquid discharges from the site ended around 1970. Over half a century later the creek sediments, creekbank soils and floodplain are still above criteria for Uniroyal toxins due to still leaking chemicals.

      Delete