SURPRISE (PLEASANT) AT TAG MEETING

Well, well, well. I was worried that Lou Almeida's (GHD) bullshit might carry the day.He had provided a report titled "Draft Gap area Review and Discussion". It was riddled with deceptions, transpositions, fibs and even subtle self-serving inaccuracies. I spent considerable time yesterday examining his report in detail and finding the facts to disprove his worst claims. There really was no need. TAG members en masse simply rejected the document outright. They accurately saw it as just one more excuse in a long litany of excuses as to why Lanxess/GHD would not properly sample and test the Gap area to find evidence of high concentrations of dioxins and DDT that may have flowed overland from their further north, east side pits onto the Stroh property and into the Stroh Drain.

Both TAG Chair Tiffany Svensson and Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach very bluntly told Lou that proper sampling of the Gap area still hasn't taken place. Lou replied that he had provided all the relevant data that Lanxess and GHD had in regards to that area. Lou continued to make excuses including the following humdinger: "the data don't support significant overland flow to the heavily forested area." Really? This forested area is to the west as well as the north of the Gap area. Essentially as Lou has confirmed, GP-1 and 2 were contaminated via overland flow from the pits due northwards. The bulk of the overland wastewaters gravity flowed southwards in a swale that can still be seen on site today via aerial and satellite photos. It entered the CRA confirmed wetlands and then spread out slowly moving via gravity to lower lying areas. These areas included GP-1 and GP-2 due south as well as some flow westwards and a major flow east and south over to the Stroh property. The topographic maps from both Conestoga Rovers (CRA) and other parties confirms this. This flow entered an even lower lying area on the Stroh property which helped hold the water creating the wetlands on both the Stroh and Lanxess property until the Stroh Drain was built in order to specifically drain the swamp so to speak.

Tiffany was particularly on her game last evening. She stated that GHD's "composite sampling was not very representative" and was "inadequate." Pat McLean stated that "the committee (TAG) was not very happy with composite sampling" and that Lou Almeida's argument that "composite sampling had been accepted simply doesn't hold water". Wow!

Sebastian assailed Lou advising that his purported dioxin TEQ criteria of 99 pg/g was inappropriate and furthermore that his supplied historical documents were both inadequate and not conclusive in regards to the likely soil contaminants in the Gap area.

Upon Lou's suggestion that there might be a problem with the definition of the Gap area, Pat McLean came back with it might be "difficult for Lanxess and GHD to find the Gap area". Holy crap but has Pat been eating her cheerios of late? She followed this by stating that no additional soil sampling in the Gap area has been done and that has been "a consistent message for many years."Tiffany again reinforced her opinion that real sampling not composite sampling is required.

Joe Kelly, I believe in support of his colleagues, however went one appropriate step further. He stated that the historic data available has key elements missing (i.e. Gap and Stroh Drain sampling) and that "we have an area that flows to the creek. It would benefit everyone to get it tested. It's a win-win." This focusing by Joe Kelly is important. I am concerned that the sole focus on the Gap could prove disastrous for the Stroh Drain investigation if Lanxess/GHD somehow manage to find samples with low concentrations of dioxins/furans and DDT then that will be their excuse not to examine the Stroh Drain. It is unconscionable that the parties with a huge financial stake at risk are the same parties in charge of sampling and everything else. It's called a conflict of interest folks.

Further comments and discussion from last night's meeting will be presented here tomorrow. This includes comments from Susan and Linda Dickson.