LAST EVENING'S TAG MEETING & THE CREEK ("GIG")

Firstly we have an error in the Minutes for the February 28/19 TAG meeting that could have been rectified in mere seconds but for the stupid rules imposed by our pretend mayor, Sandy Shantz. The error is on page three (at the top) of the Minutes and states that the results for the alleged Gap area composite samples were Non Detect. In fact simply from memory I know that SS-21 had a result of 6.97 TEQ (dioxins) and SS-20 was 3.97 TEQ and while I'm positive of the 3, the next two digits (.97) I am not positive about. Therefore due to the stupid rules the one person (moi) who spotted the error was not permitted to interrupt whether via the Chair or not to assist in correcting the error. Therefore now it stands in the Minutes.

Tag Chair Tiffany Svensson advised TAG and the public present that I had sent three e-mails to her regarding issues with detection limits well in excess of the provincial criteria and even more in excess of the federal criteria. Tiffany advised that Jason Rice (MOE/MECP) will be commenting on these detection limits (ND (0.02 ) ppm) at the RAC meeting in council chambers on April 11, 2019.

Susan Bryant raised the issue of depositional areas in the Creek being determined long after the sampling sites for DDT and dioxins had been determined and sampled. This of course certainly appears to be an example of putting the cart before the horse however Lou Almeida advised TAG that resampling these depositional areas will delay the preliminary risk assessment. Aw isn't that sad?

Mr. Almeida also solemnly advised that the risk assessment wouldn't be set in stone. In other words redos are common and if conditions or standards were to change then more work on the risk assessment would be done. That not even on paper promise, in my opinion, is worth just about as much as if it were on paper ie. nothing.

Joe Kelly raised the matter of sediment samples being taken by shovel rather than by a proper core sampler. In fact there were 24 core samples and 338 shovel samples according to Joe. In my opinion an enclosed core sampler will contain the entire sediment sample whereas an open shovel working under the surface of the water will lose more fines and DDT/Dioxin material then it will lose cobble and larger material. Therefore the whole shovel idea blows.

Way to often did I hear the word "prescribed" used mostly bu Lou Almeida. The MOE prescribes this or that and thus we have to do what they say. I view that as Lanxess/GHD hiding publicly behind the MOE while privately telling the MOE what they Lanxess are going to do. It's all a shell game.

Tiffany advised that 2,4-D is soluble. That is very interesting after twenty-five years of Uniroyal and successors blabbering on about hydrophobic dioxins, DDT and more that won't dissolve in ground or surface water. 2,4-D of course is half of Agent Orange from which dioxins were an unintended consequence.

Sebastian raised the matter of possible upstream sources of Dioxins and DDT. Lou suggested that he would like background information on the STROH DRAIN, Landfill Creek and one more further downstream. Well that is excellent. Currently the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the Creek does not include the 100 year floodline or the Stroh Drain. Lou claims that he would like to include the Stroh Drain as mentioned just previously.

Tiffany asked whether interactions between other chemicals with Dioxins and DDT was being considered. Lou said no it wasn't. In other words cumulative or synergistic effects are being ignored.They should be considered.Tiffany again suggested that the high detection limits are relevant to Section three in the CSM report which discusses contaminants.

Sebastian rather nicely asked Lou whether financial considerations were a factor in the risk assessment process. Sebastian worded it somewhat diplomatically but I think the answer is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of this process and eventual remediation costs.

Lastly Susan raised an interesting point in that most of the Historical Waste Management Units (HWMU) that had not been remediated (versus only covered & closed) were not hydraulically contained by the Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System (UACTS) as they were either on the east side of the Creek or north of the UACTS containment area.

TAG members are working hard on the Creek and other fronts. They do however need all the help that they can get. Cleaning house (i.e. CPAC & citizen volunteers) every few years benefits Lanxess, the MOE (MECP) and their assorted political and other fellow travellors. It does not help the public interest. Similarly stupid terms of reference formally embodying stupid rules denying citizens verbal input into RAC and TAG meetings is very helpful to Uniroyal/Lanxess and they thank Woolwich authorities for so doing.