WHAT ELSE DO WILDLIFE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN THE CREEK?

The Ministry of Environment have focused on Dioxins/Furans and DDT. We've included the PCBs found in the creek and recently on Chemtura property. Then we included the initial "dirty dozen" chemicals from the Stockholm Convention of which Chemtura have contributed most of them to the creek. We followed that with the recent chemical additions that have been added to the initial "dirty dozen" which have also been discharged by Uniroyal/Chemtura. Could there be anything else that Chemtura and the M.O.E. have "forgotten" to mention?

Keep in mind that in the 1940s-1970 Uniroyal were discharging to mostly unlined pits and ponds a plethora of solvents. These included your everyday toluene, xylenes, benzenes, chlorinated solvents and so much more. Discharge from the bottom of the pits slowed down somewhat after more clay lining occurred although they did not cease entirely. After the removal from the waste process of many more pits in the mid 80s discharges of solvents would have been further reduced. That left grossly contaminated groundwater still discharging to the creek throughout the site. A major component of that was finally, dramatically reduced in 1996 after implementation of the UACTS or Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System. Of course that system was only in Uniroyal's south-west corner and ignored the other three quadrants of the site. That the M.O.E. accepted it I believe is evidence of their knowledge of the surrepticious discharge from the eastern waste pits through the Stroh property via the Stroh Drain.

Back to my question at the end of the first paragraph. What else has Uniroyal/Chemtura discharged into the Canagagigue Creek that along with all the other Persistent Organic Pollutants is the "gift that just keeps on giving"? While most solvents readily dissolve, many chemicals such as POPS hang around for a very long time. They have low solubility in water, good solubility in solvents, they do not readily volatilize into the air, are lipophilic and are hydrophobic. Finally they tend to bind or adhere to soil particle, suspended sediment etc. Besides what we've already listed are a group of chemicals known as Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH). While they to my knowledge have not yet made it to the Stockholm list nevertheless they are very bad actors with the preceding characteristics. They can also be toxic to aquatic biota at various concentrations in the creek sediments.

The Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life list thirteen different PAHs which can adversely affect biota in (and around) the creek. Of these thirteen I have test results indicating that twelve of them plus a few more not on the list were discharged into the creek and are in the sediments starting at the upstream end of Chemtura essentially at non-detect and then dramatically increasing in concentration throughout their site and much further downstream towards the grand River. Many of the test results from the Bedard & Jaagumagi Report are far in excess of the guidelines.

Each and every guideline, various Effect Levels etc. are all based upon the unrealistic assumption that that chemical compound alone is the sole contaminant affecting life in the creek. Over the last few days I have indicated several groupings of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS) that exist to this day in the Canagagigue Creek and are adversely affecting aquatic life both in and out of the creek. For the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to claim otherwise and to fail to act according to provincial law is reprehensible.