FORMAL MINUTES FROM OCTOBER, YES THAT'S RIGHT OCTOBER 28/21 RELEASED

I've long complained about the delays between public meetings and when the Minutes of the meeting are released. This yet again is an example of that. Timely Minutes help reinforce important points and issues discussed at public meetings. When you receive the Minutes three months afterwards you end up either forgetting or mistaking what you thought you heard, without a written reference. This is one of the reasons that I post here the day after public RAC and TAG meetings. Even so there can be a badly worded statement or comment or even simply a comment mumbled that we the public can't even ask at TAG and RAC meetings for the speaker to please repeat their last comment as it wasn't clearly heard. That occurred at the October 28/21 TAG meeting and I reported it slightly wrong which I will clarify shortly. ............................................................................................................................. I received these Minutes two days ago and read them yesterday. WOW!!!!!!!!!!! I'll be honest here. They are EXCELLENT! My hat is off to Lisa Schaefer, Support Specialist for RAC & TAG. Her abilities to take and write Minutes have blossomed over the last six or seven years. First of all she has not only captured all the strong, important statements made at that meeting by TAG members that I did but she also via the recordings taken at the time picked up on some that I did not in my October 29 and 30, 2021 postings here. Now I did send an e-mail to Sebastian (TAG) the next day (Oct. 30/21) and tell him how great some of the statements/comments by TAG members were including Susan Bryant, Wilson Lau, Dustin Martin, Linda Dickson etc. ................................................................................................... The error that I mentioned in paragraph one related to TAG member David Hofbauer. I thought that I heard that he had declared a Conflict-of-Interest in relation to his employer, consulting company WSP, being purchased possibly by GHD, consultants to Lanxess. That was incorrect. Now of course if I and the general public could have asked the Chair to please have that comment repeated as we only caught part of it, the error would have been avoided. Now the Minutes state, and I have no reason to doubt them, that in fact WSP had purchased a company called Earthcon early in 2021, who had done work on behalf of GHD and Lanxess. Hence David Hofbauer's refusal to attend TAG since as he was in a conflict-of-interest position. I do think that he took the high road and it's unfortunate that neither Woolwich Council nor the TAG Chair seem capable of Mr. Hofbauer's understanding of conflict-of interest. ............................................................................................... Wilson Lau of TAG states in the Minutes that "Sampling completed in the Stroh Drain has not been very comprehensive. Current unknowns in the Stroh Drain could suggest that there are potential exceedances that could be greater than what we have seen in Reach 4 and the site as a whole. If evidence suggests that, it could be a gap in the risk assessment and will need to be addressed." Susan Bryant and Wilson both commented on the Martin property, due south of the Stroh property. There is a swimming pond near one of the sediment sample points that greatly exceeded the criteria for dioxins/furans. I personally know that a portion of the Stroh Drain gravity flows into the pond as I and another have seen it with our own eyes. Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach stated that we do not know if the 24.4 ppt dioxin reading (criteria is .85 ppt) is a typical reading, a low reading or a high reading within the length of the Stroh Drain. Wilson also suggested that regarding risk assessments, quanitative assessments using empirical data are the gold standard versus qualitative assessments. He further stated that "Stantec (on behalf of GHD) did not provide sufficient rationale or justification on the selection of qualitative/quantitative approaches for risk evaluation of select exposure pathways." Apparently someone (likely Tiffany Svensson?) asked Lanxess for clarification prior to the Minutes being finalized. Lanxess responded by saying that "...a new receptor in Reach 4 [Correction: Reach 3] will be discussed internally. They also claimed that "...detailed justifications to support qualitative assessments will be provided in the HHERA report." HHERA = Human health & Ecological Risk Assessment. Oh well if Lanxess says that they are taking care of things then I'm sure that everything is just dandy. LOL .................................................................................................. Dustin Martin (TAG) supports Wilson Lau's comments about the lack of data for the Stroh Drain and area. This could very well be a data gap in the Risk Assessment (RA). Dustin also questioned the uncertainty analysis in the Draft RA (i.e. Problem Formulation). He feels that TAG should have "...a more fulsome evaluation or explanation of the uncertainty analysis for the entire site, not just the Stroh Drain." Eric Hodgins (Region of Waterloo) also commented about the uncertainty evaluation. "First, a lot of this assessment presumes a continuity and integrity of the existing remedial systems...". "The existing mitigation needs to be maintained..." Secondly the uncertainty analysis "...presumes an absolute reliance by Stantec on the information provided for assuming this is the extent of contamination on the site. They are not reinterpreting the site or second guessing any data because they don't have an understanding of the site." "Stantec is not really in a position to evaluate the uncertainty in the conceptual site model." Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach (TAG & CPAC) agreed that "...there is an entire dependency by Stantec on GHD reporting on the data and CSM and this is a concern." He also advised that contrary to the Draft Risk Assessment that industrial wastes were deposited in the nearby Bolender Park Landfill including wastes from Uniroyal Chemical. ......................................................................................................................................... These Minutes are one of the more powerful and blunt assessments of difficulties and concerns with Lanxess/GHD/MECP's handling of the cleanup of mostly the Canagagigue Creek but also including a mention of a lack of shallow aquifer containment last September allowing contaminated groundwater to discharge into the creek ("Gig"). Kudos to TAG are deserved although delay, delay, delay and all the other gamesmanship by the guilty parties involved will dilute these good efforts as always.