SMOKING GUNS ARE IN SHORT SUPPLY

In Canadian courtrooms we have a criminal standard of proof, namely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We also have a standard of proof in non criminal or civil proceedings referred to as on the balance of probabilities. Unfortunately both of these standards of proof historically have been perverted either by juries or judges. It has become obvious that standards of proof are extraordinarily subjective. What one person interprets as conclusive evidence of guilt, the next person interprets as being merely circumstantial evidence of little weight.

It is with this background that I posit a theory. This "theory" however has twenty years of circumstantial and stronger evidence to back it up. We know through admissions by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment that they amended the 1991 Control Order issued upon Uniroyal Chemical. We also know that they did so without proper notice or notification either before or after the fact. This includes a decade of public references to the old Order without so much as a whisper from the M.O.E. that they had made huge changes in regards to hydraulic containment. It is now looking likely that they have done the same thing in regards to DNAPLS (dense non aqueous phase liquids) that were ordered removed in the 1991 Control Order. How else can the M.O.E. literally go for twenty years without enforcing their own Control Order? Obviously there has been some sort of gentleman's agreement (and I use the term loosely) between the M.O.E. and Uniroyal (Chemtura). I believe this agreement occurred in the late summer of 1991. At this time there was only one organized opposition in town to either the M.O.E. or Uniroyal and that was APT Environment of which I, Richard Clausi and Esther Thur were all members. Esther and Richard were also on the APTE executive referred to as the co-ordinating committee. There absolutely was not any official or formalized (written) agreement between the M.O.E. or Uniroyal with APT Environment. For that to have occurred and been valid it would have required a vote and prior discussion with the APTE coordinators, which did not occur. There was a debate and discussion with the coordinators initiated by Richard and I in December 1993. The results of that were simply APTE refusing to take any action on the December 10/93 M.O.E. acceptance of Conestoga Rovers nonsensical and highly criticized DNAPL report. Sometime after 1997, Henry Regier joined APTE and became an active member for seven years. Again he is unaware of any formal or informal agreement between the whole of APTE and either the M.O.E. or Uniroyal (Crompton/Chemtura). All of this leads me to a very unpalatable conclusion. I know for a fact that the President of APTE and the Chair of CPAC have negotiated/discussed issues privately for years with the other two parties. I also know for a FACT that those two, without full CPAC debate and voting approved the terms of the Ammonia Treatment System Certificate of Approval. In fact they did this in the midst of informal discussions with me and with formal written disagreement from me. They bilaterally took it upon themselves to agree to a flawed document and the President of APTE later verbally admitted to me that she would have to "eat crow"for so doing. This was because I was easily able to convince hydrogeologist, Wilf Ruland that the specific wells agreed to by Pat and Susan were totally inappropriate as they were screened in the wrong aquifer. This was the reason Susan and Wilf agreed to attend a formal meeting at Chemtura to discuss and debate my Appeal of this Ammonia Treatment Certificate of Approval.

So what is my unpalatable conclusion? Two members (at most) of APTE made a private verbal agreement with either the M.O.E. or Uniroyal or both to ignore the requirement of DNAPL removal in the 1991 Control Order. This is why APTE did nothing in December 1993 and have failed to follow up on the CPAC July 2003 "Request for Action" document. They also failed to follow up on the January 2007 University of Waterloo DNAPL breakthrough meeting attended by yours truly, Pat, Susan and Wilf. There are a plethora of possible motivations for these private agreements. Let me however remind everyone of the following quote: " The road to hell is paved with good intentions."