ARE GHD JUST AS BAD AS CRA?

It is difficult to read, study and prepare as strenuously as one once did when both the public and CPAC members have been arbitrarily and unethically removed from the public consultation process by Chemtura /Lanxess and the MOE (MECP) with the assistance of our pretend mayor. After all why have everything at your fingerprints when the Chair of TAG has been ordered NOT to take either questions or comments from the most informed citizens? This of course is exactly what the guilty parties want.

Item 4.2.2 on this Thursday's TAG Agenda is the January 23, 2019 GHD Memo Re: "Re-evaluation of Canagagigue Creek Contaminants of Potential Concern." I view this Memo as a typical piece of junk science or psuedo science as we've been blessed with for the last thirty years and hence my answer to the question in the above title is a hearty "Yes!"

My general list of concerns is as follows:

The hired gun or client driven consultant should neither be doing sampling nor writing reports as if their observations, analysis and conclusions were handed down from Moses unto the people. It is called a conflict of interest for those well paid by the polluter and appropriately biased individuals who profess not to understand why this system is a perversion of the truth, facts and science.

Background concentrations for some contaminants are much lower than sediment samples taken on site and as well the on-site samples are well above Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines. Allegedly these PAH's however are not Uniroyal Site Related contaminants which I find unlikely. They are then not included as Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC).

Lindane in some of the Tables is listed as a Site Related Contaminant and in others is not. Endosulfan is also not indicated to be a Site Related Contaminant which I believe is in error.

Literally dozens of VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs etc. are not indicated as to whether they are or are not Sited Related Contaminants. This is unacceptable.

Literally dozens of these various contaminants exceed the criteria yet they are removed as COPC for various reasons some of which I interpret as excuses not legitimate reasons.

This report needs to be taken apart line by line by either independent from the polluter, professionals hired and paid by the government or by amateurs with the time, interest and talent to do so. Of course as indicated earlier most of those people have been systematically eliminated from fully participating in the public consultation process.