Thursday, July 21, 2022


 By inadequate cleanup I'm referring to the trifecta namely the Elmira aquifers, the Canagagigue Creek and the actual grossly polluted former Uniroyal Chemical site itself. These bogus and deceptive technical reports include Conestoga Rovers (CRA) and GHD technical reports. On a comparative basis with other consultants perhaps their client driven conclusions may or may not be further from a nuetral, unbiased position although my opinion is that they are. 

   As examples I will state that a multitude of DNAPL (dense non aqueous phase liquids) reports from the 1990s and 2000s are in this category as well as the reports regarding the Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System (UACS). There was also some serious deception in at least one of the Ammonia Treatment reports back around 2006 - 7. 

  The plethora of reports on the state of the Canagagigue Creek starting in 2012, initiated by George Karlos of the Ministry of Environment, are also prime examples of manipulation and deception. First and foremost there is the issue of locational bias. Chemtura initially sends out CRA personnel to sample soils and sediments in the most accessible locations which would be where the three downstream bridges cross the Canagagigue (the "Gig"). This is at the New Jerusalem Rd, Northfield Dr. and Jigs Hollow Rd. (#46). Lo and behold all three locations which allow for personnel and equipment to be dropped off right at the Creek have exceedances in sediments and soils for both DDT and dioxins/furans. These exceedances then fuel further and later testing in the same locations versus taking an equal number of samples up or downstream from these already proven to be highly contaminated locations.

   Of course the larger number of parameters tested for increase the laboratory costs hence the parameters are scoped to DDT compounds and dioxin/furans. Way back in 1996 there were lots of herbicides,  insecticides, fungicides etc. as well as Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) found. IF they are no longer there it is because we (Uniroyal, Woolwich, Region, Ontario MOE) have allowed them to be both ingested by wildlife and diluted and spread out by downstream migration.

   Joe Kelly, former TAG member, jumped all over GHD for their sediment sampling using shovels instead of proper core samplers in the bottom of the Creek. The excuse that the bottom of the Creek was "armoured" precluding the use of core samplers was ridiculous. If it's "armoured" (stones/rocks) then move elsewhere where the core samplers can properly move through the sediments on the bottom of the Creek.

  Method Detection Limit (MDL) abuses are huge in my opinion. The most recent 2020 Creek Investigation was a stinker with biases against finding higher numbers of exceedances in Creek sediments of DDT (& compounds) as well as of lindane. This also includes smaller creeks that feed into the "Gig" such as Larch's, Landfill Ck., Shirt Factory Ck, Bolender Park Ck, and the Stroh Drain). Essentially the MDLs are higher than the federal or provincial health criteria hence the reports will state that the toxic compound will be Non-Detect at the particular high method detection limit used. For example if the criteria for a compound is 1 ppb or part per billion and the MDL is set at 3 ppb. then all exceedances between 1 and 3 ppb. will not register as exceedances but as Non-Detects.

  These are but a few of the scams being used to minimize both the extent of contamination as well as to reduce the costs of cleaning up after this man-made environmental disaster. 


No comments:

Post a Comment