MOE/MECP "CRITIQUE" OF A LANXESS (GHD) GROUNDWATER REPORT

Firstly there are some significant and worthwhile suggestions/reccommendations by the Ministry of Environment's hydrogeologist (May 18/21). Unfortunately based upon her comments regarding past reccommendations ignored by Lanxess/GHD I have to ask how many of these new ones will actually show up in the revised report. The nine page critique generally is supportive of GHD's conclusions that they have substantially delineated the groundwater regieme on the Stroh property. Yet again all the guilty parties (Uniroyal/Lanxess/GHD/MECP ) just can't seem to get around actually putting the name of the property in print. They keep calling it 6770 Line 86 rather than the "Stroh property". I view this as just one more concession (i.e. private deal) between the guilty parties and Mr. Ron Stroh. I also don't view that deal as being remotely in the public's interest. In fact why should it be? That is the inherent purpose of private deals: make the signatories happy and to hell with the unwashed masses (i.e. the public) who breathe the air, drink the water and eat the food grown on this site. .............................................................................................................. I find the suggestion that a NDMA reading 250 metres east of Lanxess and (cross-gradient) is an anomoly to be rather naive at best. I find that the high concentrations along the Lanxess/Stroh property line to be astounding considering that those east side pits were allegedly closed mostly prior to 1980 with the last two (RPE-4 & 5) excavated in 1993. I find any readings whatsoever of NDMA or any other signature chemicals from Uniroyal/Lanxess found fourty to fifty years after the pits were out of operation (1966-70) and 250 metres either up gradient or cross gradient to be immense cause for alarm. Clearly the history that we have been given is not totally accurate. Groundwater moves albeit slowly but that simply doesn't add up with the narrative the public have been given. .................................................................................................................................... I believe that the Ministry's hydrogeologist needs to better acquaint herself with the alleged toxic waste history of Uniroyal Chemical etc. and advise if the current results half a century later make any sense at all. ........................................................................................................................ P.S. As per Wednesday's (2 days ago) posting, the number of CPAC members responding/commenting to my Open Letter to TAG has risen to Five. No increases or changes for the goose eggs (0) received back from the Township (Woolwich) or the Region of Waterloo. TAG remains at the 1 response from the CPAC member on the committee.