Saturday, March 2, 2019


Despite some critical comments made yesterday regarding Lou Almeida (GHD) nevertheless he did make some interesting and helpful comments such as pits GP-1 and GP-2 "communicated" with the creek. He stated that the primary route of contaminant transport to the Canagagigue Creek was both overland flow from the pits as well as seepage through soils and into groundwater that discharged into the Creek. Well now that kind of puts a different slant on Chemtura and the MOE's claims to CPAC in 2013 and 2014 that the remediation of these former gravel pits was voluntary. In fact I suggest that Mr. Almeida's honest comment indicates the dishonesty of both Chemtura Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP).

Again just like the GP-1 excavation done in 2013 followed up in 2014 with the "supplementary" excavations in 2014, there will be a return bout on the Stroh farm. It turns out that the December and early January excavations done on the Stroh farm didn't catch everything above the criteria for dioxins/furans and DDT. Oh what a surprise (not). Lou informed us that confirmatory sampling of both the sidewalls and the base of the shallow excavation has found more. What the hell do you expect when you only test 15 cm. or 5.9 inches deep in the first place? The current plan is for more digging in March. Hmm we'll see.

Tiffany Svensson, TAG Chair, suggested that the reasons for dropping some chemicals from the list of Contaminants Of Potential Concern (COPC) was "thin". Lindane, in particular, she finds to be problematic. It is one of the dirty dozen persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and should not be dropped. Susan Bryant added that while Lindane was not manufactured on site it was still a raw material that was added to the manufacturing process of other pesticides such as Vitavax and that it continues to flow off-site via MISA outlets on the Lanxess site and into the Canagagigue. She also asked a very good question namely "Has Lindane been tested recently in sediments in the creek?" I would suggest that the answer to that question is no.

Lou Almeida tried to justify dropping Lindane by stating that it was initially looked at for the 2002-2003 Health & Environmental Risk Assessment on the Uniroyal/Crompton site. He stated that it was dropped because it was below the site specific criteria. What he didn't say was that the site specific criteria are much higher than either the generic criteria as well as much higher than any criteria in and around the Creek. Naughty Lou!

Susan B. also added that there were 23 contaminant exceedances in various soil samples examined that were not listed in the COPC. Lou responded with the very interesting comment that the top 1.5 metres of soil is considered available for migration into the creek. What the hell! Then why do they continue to do surficial soil sampling only 15 cm. or 5.9 inches deep???

Pat McLean suggested that TAG's mandate should be expanded to include things like fires, current air emissions etc. Linda Dickson spoke in agreement as she feels that there are two different areas of jurisdiction between RAC and TAG with RAC having the larger role. My question is this simply more of Pat helping out her buddies over at the chemical plant (Lanxess) who have been courting Sulco (Canada Colours), asking to join their Citizens Advisory Panel (CAP). Is that not going so well hence TAG is their backup plan?

No comments:

Post a Comment