SPECIFIC COMMENTS & RESPONSES FROM TAG AND STANTEC

 As suggested yesterday I will include some of the statements made by TAG and Stantec regarding the Draft Risk Assessment (Ecological & Human Health) for the Canagagigue Creek. These comments are not all encompassing as there are other issues affecting the credibility of this Risk Assessment including very high Method Detection Limits, locational biases, improper sediment sampling procedures (shovel vs. core samplers) etc.                                                                                                                                     .........................................................................                                                                                             "For example, at Station 21 in Reach 3, near the first bridge at New Jerusalem Rd. and near 3 farmhouses, one sediment sample (21BS1) had concentrations of total TEQ for dioxins as 868 and 1090 pg/g. The ISQG standard is.85 pg/g.  The sediment exceedance of the larger number is over 1000 times the standard. As there are only a few additional locations like this one, TAG requests that the hotspots be included in the targeted remediation for reasons outlined in more detail below. "                                   ..............................................................................................                                                                         Stantec's response on behalf of Lanxess is "While targeted remediation could remove these "hotspots" from the Creek, possible detrimental consequences to the aquatic floral and faunal communities within the area could also occur as a result". I view this response as weak and simply cost saving.                       ...................................................................................................                                                                   TAG states "...the assumption that land use will not change in the next 25 to 50 years is doubtful. Waterloo Region is one of the fastest growing and changing places in Canada. It is reasonable to assume that land uses will change from agricultural along portions of the creek. The pressure for increased recreational human activity along the creeks such as parks, trails. fishing etc. has the potential to increase human contact to these persistent toxins before the persistent toxins including DDT and dioxins have broken down."                                                                                                                           ................................................................                                                                                                       Stantec's response "Even if surrounding land use changed from agricultural to, for example, residential, the human receptors used in the HHRA and ecological receptors used in the ERA and exposure parameters would remain the same. Additional text will be added to the revised HHERA accordingly to address this comment." Well I fail to see how additional text in a Risk Assessment document either changes or fixes anything. I view this response as barely even lip service.                                                   ....................................................................................                                                                                    TAG writes "Furthermore, flooding is identified as one of the biggest climate challenge impacts in the Region going forward." "Any washout of the hotspots will end up in the Grand River, a source of drinking water for many."                                                                                                                               ..................................................................                                                                                                     Clearly TAG are again suggesting that more remediation (removal) of hotspots are required. Instead Stantec suggests "We agree that flooding could remove surface layers of soil and sediment, thereby bringing chemicals to the surface that were previously found at depth. That is why in the HHERA, all of the data, regardless of depth, were used in the characterization of risk. Therefore, should flooding events cause movement of soil and sediment, it is unlikely that the results of the HHERA would change since deeper samples were already included in the overall evaluation of risk. "   Good Lord are Stantec so hung up on the goodness and quality of their document (Risk Assessment) that they are intentionally deflecting the argument of deeper toxins being mobilized and spread further downriver? TAG's comments were for greater cleanup not to fix some stupid, riddled with assumptions, document allegedly providing insight when in reality it is simply greenwashing and reducing Lanxess's cleanup costs on the back of local residents and others.                                                                                 .............................................................................                                                                                         This is but a sample of this June 6/22 document sent to TAG Chair Tiffany Svensson by Stantec on behalf of their client, Lanxess Canada. This is how Qualified Persons (QP), intellectual prostitutes and others sell their services to well heeled clients. Truth is the first casualty of war and they are at war with both human health and the environment.