CPAC & SWAT EAST SIDE DISCOVERIES BEING FINALLY ADMITTED AND VALIDATED

Following is a Table and text I have copied and pasted from page 15 of the just released (Monday) "East Side Surficial Soil and Groundwater Investigation" report December 30, 2015, written by GHD (CRA) on behalf of Chemtura Canada. These samples were taken along Chemtura's eastern border from north to south ending below RPE5 and above the start of the Stroh Drain which runs parallel, 20 metres east of their site. Pg/g is the same as parts per trillion (ppt). As can be seen these samples taken right on the border with their neighbour's active farm have Dioxins in the shallow soil at concentrations between double to seventy times greater than the Human Risk Based Criterion calculated for humans on the Chemtura site.




Dioxin and furan TEQs were greater than the Human Risk Criteria in surficial soil samples from
locations SS01-15 through SS07-15. Only the sample from SS06-15 was greater than both the
Human Risk Criterion and the Ecological Risk Criterion for dioxins and furans. The following table
summarizes the dioxin and furan TEQ concentrations from surficial soil samples where TEQs are
greater than the applicable Human and/or Ecological Risk Criteria.





LOCATION***Human Criteria***Dioxin & Furan TEQ (pg/g)



SS01-15 *******36.6************460/385
SS02-15 *******36.6************479
SS03-15 *******36.6************234
SS04-15 *******36.6************87.2
SS05-15 *******36.6************160
SS06-15 *******36.6************2,430
SS07-17 *******36.6************123


5.1.2 Results Relevant to Potential Off-Site Receptors
As the Human Health Criteria and Ecological Criteria were developed considering exposure to
on-Site soil (e.g., in an industrial land use setting), these criteria are not directly applicable for
considering potential exposure to the neighbours to impacted off-Site soil. The neighbouring
property includes a residential dwelling and is used for agricultural purposes. To consider the
potential exposure pathways of off-Site contaminants (i.e., exposure to impacted soil off Site,
immediately adjacent to the Site boundary) to the more sensitive receptors on the neighbouring
property, GHD has also compared the concentrations to the Table 2 and Table 8 Standards (for
reference purposes only). The Table 2 and Table 8 Standards are the generic criteria that would be
applicable for off-Site impacts on the neigbouring property. As the Human Risk Criteria and
Ecological Risk Criteria are appropriate for on-Site soil impacts, only off-Site impacts should be
compared to the Table 2 and Table 8 Standards.


In regards to the above paragraph let me advise the readers that the Table 2 standards refer to agricutural land and are set at 13 pg/g or ppt. The Table 8 standards are set for Dioxins in soil within 30 metres of a waterway and are 7 pg/g or ppt. Hence we can see that these two standards are appropriately much more stringent than the criteria calculated for on-site trespassers (36.6), determined by Conestoga Rovers (CRA) for their Human Health Risk Assessment done back in 2002 -2003. These concentrations just for Dioxins and Furans right on their property line are beyond dangerous and a serious health hazard. To GHD's (formerly CRA) credit they have acknowledged in the text that these concentrations found on their eastern property border obviously indicate off-site contamination onto their neighbour's property.

I am working hard on this very large and detailed report. Readers also need to know that DDT and its' metabolytes also exceed health criteria along the eastern border as do some other parameters such as solvents and NDMA. This is a disgrace that only now due to the efforts of citizens on the last CPAC and SWAT has this environmental disaster come to light.