Ed Smith, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Pointer

For years, St. Catharines residents living near the former General Motors industrial site have raised concerns about potential health and environmental risks posed by the contaminated 55-acre property. For just as long, their concerns have been met with vague assurances from officials, insisting there is no cause for concern.  

Nothing underscores the ongoing worry more than the events of 2020 and 2021, when residents got together to demand authorities take action to have the site cleaned up and made safe. In response to unrelenting pressure elected officials, City staff, and members of the public gathered online on December 22, 2020. During the virtual meeting, a briefing from the provincial Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) was provided on the results of testing that had been conducted in direct response to pressure applied by residents.

The testing was very limited and not even what a low-level environmental assessment of the actual GM site would require. The province’s testing focussed primarily on the presence of PCBs and used stormwater runoff points, primarily, and also one location at the adjacent Twelve Mile Creek (a large, flowing body of water in St. Catharines) to assess contamination levels. The long list of toxins shown to be present during previous testing that was kept from the public (the focus of The Pointer’s recent Freedom of Information investigation) was not part of the province’s limited analysis. It did not conduct tests at the former GM site itself, no ground testing, no bore-hole testing and no work to find where the sources of previously detected toxins were located. 

By the end of the meeting, two contrasting messages emerged. City Hall and Ministry officials framed it as a “good news” story, reassuring attendees that the site was not a significant concern to human or environmental health. Meanwhile, residents voiced dismay and frustration, feeling once again that those entrusted to protect their health were falling far short of their responsibility.

Recent FOI requests by The Pointer, along with a series of events and other documents related to the site’s toxic legacy, have confirmed that residents had good reason to worry about the extent of the contamination and to question the official messaging. 

Previous investigations by The Pointer—following a two-year fight with the City of St. Catharines and GM to release critical environmental studies conducted on the property, have revealed disturbing levels of contamination present in 2010 and 2012 when the last extensive analyses were completed. No comprehensive testing has been conducted since, despite multiple recommendations for further analysis, leaving residents worried that these toxic chemicals—sometimes known to persist in soil and groundwater for decades—are still present, leaching from the site and endangering their health.

New documents released as part of a separate Freedom of Information request reveal that comments from Niagara Regional Public Health (NRPH)—intended to inform council and the public about potential health risks associated with the site—were removed from the MECP’s PowerPoint presentation, and the written document of record, before the public presentation in December 2020.

One week prior to the public meeting, the MECP shared results of the surface water and air monitoring tests, which had recently been conducted, with public health officials, seeking their input on human health risks for potential inclusion in their presentation regarding the site. According to the FOI documents obtained by The Pointer, in an emailed response to the ministry on December 15, 2020, a week before the public meeting, NRPH officials provided five bullet points for inclusion in the public presentation. But when that presentation was given to the public on December 22, one critical bullet point was absent, the documents obtained by The Pointer reveal.

NRPH sent this point to the Ministry for inclusion in the presentation, which was eventually omitted in the written document: 

“Environmental contaminants, however, usually take many years to manifest as health outcomes. Therefore, analysis of contaminants present already, and being released into the environment on an ongoing basis are an important predictor if adverse health may result in the future.”

Public health officials were underscoring the critical need to identify which contaminants are present both on and off the site in order to accurately assess the potential for negative health outcomes. This would involve either a full environmental assessment of the former GM site or detailed testing to learn what the potential risks might be. Residents have been demanding exactly this information for years.

Ministry officials were well aware that a long list of cancer causing chemicals, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons (PHCs) and other industrial wastes that can be incredibly harmful to humans, fish and other aquatic life were present at high concentrations on the site in 2012. Lead contamination—which can hamper brain development in fetuses, infants and children, was found at 10 times the level established to protect human health and the environment; PHC F1 (a class of petroleum hydrocarbons that includes things like gasoline) was present at levels more than 20 times allowable limits; trichloroethylene (TCE), a known human carcinogen, was present at more than 30 times the limits; benzene, another known carcinogen, was found at levels more than 50 times the set limits; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were found at more than 85 times the limit; and PHC F3 (another class of PHCs which includes diesel) was detected at 1,100 times the limit. 

Other harmful carcinogens including arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, antimony, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, ethylbenzene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—a particularly toxic type of PHC that is incredibly hard to break down in natural conditions—were all discovered at the site above Ministry thresholds set in the Environmental Protection Act to protect people and wildlife.

It is widely known that brownfield sites can pose potential risks to surrounding residents. 

In 2023, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a systematic review analyzing existing literature and empirical evidence on the relationship between brownfield sites and health outcomes.

The review found consistent positive associations between proximity to brownfield sites and adverse health effects. These included increased mortality rates, higher incidence of birth defects, elevated serum metal levels, accelerated immune aging and self-reported poorer general health.

The inclusion of the bullet point could have underscored for the public, councillors and other officials the dire need for further testing and health studies in order to be certain that contaminants from the GM site were not finding their way into the surrounding community and making residents ill. 

Kim Groombridge, Manager for the Drinking Water and Environmental Compliance Division at MECP who provided the 2020 presentation said this important fact was not included in the video presentation because it was viewed as a “general caveat” and “not specific to the former GM site”. 

”In discussions with the Public Health Unit, we jointly decided…(it) would be included as speaking notes during the presentation,” Groombridge stated in an emailed response. 

Although Groombridge did verbally state the critical point from NRPH during her presentation—acknowledging that “Environmental contaminants can take many years to manifest as outcomes, and the analysis of contaminants already present and being released into the environment on an ongoing basis is an important predictor of potential adverse health effects in the future”—these remarks were buried within a flood of information. There was no emphasis or further explanation of the comment to make it clear that what the original written (but omitted) bullet point communicated, was the critical need to do proper detailed testing to find out if known dangerous chemicals on the site could possibly pose a serious health risk to anyone who came in contact through them. This critical emphasis was not made in the verbal presentation.

No further attention was drawn to the information that had been removed from the written record of the presentation. 

In response to questions, the NRPH stressed to The Pointer the need for ongoing study of the site, particularly with certain contaminants like PCBs that can persist in the environment for many years. 

This raises questions about the removal of the information about the need to identify contaminants and their levels “on an ongoing basis” and why this was the one bullet point that was removed from the written record. The verbal communication left many in the public with an incomplete understanding of the potential risks and the urgency of the situation.

Then, the very bullet point that was removed by the MECP for the written presentation in December 2020, was reinserted when the provincial environment ministry met privately with Niagara Region Public Health officials for a briefing in March of 2021, appearing to show them that their original concerns, highlighted in the five bullet points emphasized for inclusion by the public health officials, had been included in the province’s written record. It suggests the MECP had no issue discussing the subject behind closed doors and recognized the importance of emphasizing the need for extensive testing to protect residents, but downplayed the significance of this when the very same emphasis was removed from the written record shared with the public.

Dennis Edell, co-founder of the Coalition for a Better St. Catharines, has been at the forefront of efforts to push for the cleanup of the GM site since 2018. In 2020, the Coalition authored a petition demanding action, gathering over 2,000 signatures from local residents. When officials appeared unresponsive to community concerns, the group’s members took matters into their own hands, raising funds to commission an independent study. Members of the organization have long maintained that residents have a right to know exactly what contaminants remain on the site—and what, if any, impact these toxins have had on the environment and their health.

“We (the Coalition) have been fighting for more than five years to bring to light the health issues around the GM site.  We have never been satisfied that any of the authorities were being open and transparent,” Edell told The Pointer. “Residents’ concerns have still not been addressed. The Ministry has repeatedly refused our invitation to hold a public hearing where citizens can ask the tough questions that need to be answered. How much more are they hiding?” 

The independent study commissioned by the Coalition was conducted in July 2020 by Environmental Liability Management (ELM), a consulting agency with extensive expertise in managing environmental impacts on land, wildlife, communities and industry. Although ELM’s access to the GM site was restricted, they developed recommendations based on offsite observations and available environmental data.

The ELM report highlighted the need to identify and quantify the “loading of contaminants” both onsite and offsite. It emphasized that once contaminants are properly identified, mapped, and ranked according to their risk to wildlife and humans, this information would be crucial in developing a comprehensive site management plan to mitigate risks.

The City and property owners have long been aware of the need for further investigation so risk to the surrounding communities can be properly assessed. As previously reported by The Pointer, Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) commissioned by GM and completed in 2010 and 2012 have been in the City’s possession since 2015, showing the disturbing extent of the widespread contamination. However, City officials have actively worked with GM to prevent the public disclosure of these documents. Former mayor Walter Sendzik worked behind closed doors with the former property owner to have the land rezoned for residential use, despite knowing the risks the site could pose. Council, under his leadership, eventually passed a zoning change clearing the way for residential and commercial redevelopment on the site, despite the City’s possession of the alarming documents that were kept from the public.

The ESA reports revealed toxic chemical concentrations on the site—some exceeding legal limits by thousands of times—and explicitly recommended further investigation to determine whether contaminants were migrating offsite. There is no evidence that this follow-up work was ever conducted. City officials and councilors have remained silent on the need to better understand the impact the site has on the health of the surrounding community.

Little has been done to address the risks of living in proximity to the site, despite a petition signed by thousands of citizens demanding a cleanup. 

Edell recalls community meetings organized by the Coalition where residents shared troubling stories of illnesses they feared were triggered by exposure to toxins escaping the site. He also highlights the ongoing frustration with local officials who have failed to conduct perimeter testing; refused to hold the property owner accountable for safety and security lapses; and neglected to pressure the Ministry to take the necessary steps to mitigate the serious risks to both human health and the environment.

“The fact is they don’t know,” Edell states. “They have not done the testing, they don’t know what toxins may be escaping through groundwater or soil contamination.  They have not tested backyards, they have not even tested the entire site. Their own reports talk of the need to do it, and now we learn that public health also spoke of the need for more information, but nobody is bothering to do it.”

Despite clear evidence that the site poses a risk to the surrounding community, the overriding message from officials at City Hall and the MECP has been one of reassurance.

At the online meeting that night in December 2020, then mayor Sendzik had this to say about the work Groombridge had done: “Thank you for putting the information into something that is understandable for us here today. There’s a lot of really good positive information here and I would like to say thank you on behalf of council for all of your efforts.”

City officials have cultivated close personal relationships with developers and have shown support for their interests regarding the site. Former mayor Sendzik, who aggressively pushed the proposed development project, was photographed with the original developer, Robert Megna in the Caribbean in 2015, shortly after Megna purchased the GM site. He is no longer part of the project, after numerous provincial offence charges related to his company’s failure to clean up the property.

At the December 2020 meeting, when councillor Dawn Dodge asked about potential health risks from the site, Groombridge responded: “Our surveys have not identified any risks or health risks offsite of the property.” 

What she failed to clarify, however, is that the work conducted up to that point was neither comprehensive nor designed to detect offsite health risks. In fact, just six months later, the MECP reported that additional testing had uncovered a significant and continuous leak of PCBs from the site—a leak they admitted could have been ongoing for an unknown period. It raised concerns about Groombridge’s earlier assurances that the site was being properly monitored regularly, as stated during that initial 2020 meeting.

The Ministry has the ability to properly assess human health risks through a process called a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA). According to the Ministry’s website, an HHRA is: “the evaluation of the risk of adverse health effects, and the accompanying uncertainties, to humans caused by exposure to a contaminant at a given property”.

An HHRA involves scientifically examining the nature and magnitude of risks to human health from environmental contaminants including chemicals, pollutants, or other hazardous agents. It considers specific exposure scenarios and pathways and informs proper decision making for risk management, environmental cleanup, and regulatory actions.

Dean Fitzgerald is a senior ecologist with Integrated Ecosystems Solutions working in environmental sciences and brownfield rehabilitation for more than 30 years. He has worked on numerous HHRA’s in the course of his career.

“An HHRA is a reasonable way to address concerns related to exposure to man-made chemicals, also called toxic chemicals. If an HHRA is designed properly, such an assessment can be worthwhile,” Fitzgerald said. “The HHRA needs to have appropriate exposure pathways included in the design for all toxic chemicals and toxins that exceed government guidelines, but done properly they are very useful for identifying risks.”

After reviewing all documentation obtained through FOI requests, The Pointer found no evidence of a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) for the GM site. When asked for confirmation, the MECP confirmed that it has not received an HHRA from the property owner, but noted that submitting one is not mandatory. The ministry explained that a developer may choose to either clean the site and submit a record of site condition report, or conduct an HHRA instead. In this case, neither is happening. The current property owner paused work on the site in May of last year, signalling an unwillingness to pay for the necessary studies. 

St. Catharines officials have consistently shown reluctance to exercise the powers at their disposal. As reported by The Pointer, the City has the authority to address human health risks and property standards—yet officials have refused to use these powers to compel comprehensive testing and a full cleanup of the site. They could also collaborate with the MECP to initiate an HHRA—providing a much-needed sense of security for surrounding residents—but they have failed to take that step.

The health and environmental risks posed by the GM site remain uncertain. The decision to remove critical public health information from the written record follows a pattern in the ongoing saga, with residents wondering when they will find out about any potential risks to their well being.

Email: ed.smith@thepointer.com

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---