LAST NIGHT'S TAG MEETING

 Agenda Item 5.2 is "Stantec response to TAG comments on the HHERA" (i.e. Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment). Well I told them in writing 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years ago that Risk Assessments (RA), in Elmira at least, are nothing more than greenwashing and now they are beginning to understand. The most common statement last evening is that this issue and that issue are outside the scope of the Risk Assessment. Then there were the multiple statements regarding various assumptions used  in the RA.  Common sense and facts come a distant second to the RA process which includes a very limited scope and a plethora of mostly self-serving assumptions. RA's under the control of polluters and weak enforcement agencies are an environmental disaster waiting to happen.                       .................................................................                                                                                                     We learned from Linda Dickson that carbon dioxide emissions data astoundingly are not included in the Annual Environmental Report. This omission apparently is due to recent changes from the Ontario Conservative government. Oh what a surprise.                                                                                              .................................................                                                                                                                       Also the night time shunting of trains on the Lanxess and Sulco (CCC) sites are due to the LRT using the tracks in K-W during the day only permitting night time use in Elmira. Wow.                                        ............................................................................................                                                                          Back to Agenda Item 5.2, Susan Bryant expressed her  disappointment to Stantec's responses to TAG comments and suggestions. She stated that TAG only asked for the meager and do able namely removal of the limited extent of "hot spots" in the Creek and yet have been refused. She also suggested that if the Canagagigue  Creek flowed through an expensive residential neighbourhood in K-W such as Beechwood or Westmount, it would have been cleaned up long ago. She is correct. That said I also told her years and decades ago that the company whether  Uniroyal, Crompton, Chemtura or Lanxess were not ethical or honest. Their promises were meaningless. Nevertheless Susan followed her own direction including sneaking concessions to Chemtura behind CPAC's back and negotiating privately and without authorization from CPAC with the Ministry (MECP) and Chemtura. I warned her that the polluter and successors were not honourable and their word could not be trusted. She lied, deceived, manipulated and backstabbed some of her colleagues and for what? Exactly nothing. To date they have accepted money saving concessions (monitoring etc.) and given nothing back. Perhaps they will throw TAG and Susan a bone down the road and perhaps they won't.                                                                                   ............................................                                                                                                                           Both Tiffany and Wilson appeared to be not so much defending Lanxess/Stantec as explaining how Stantec under hire to Lanxess are restricting their comments and opinions to the RA requirements and scope. In other words the RA process is king and Stantec will not colour outside the lines by suggesting either RA weaknesses nor exceptions to it. Both Tiffany and Wilson did suggest that maybe the only hope lay in community concerns and acceptance i.e. that might push Lanxess into doing more. David Hofbauer clarified that most of the "hot spots" are directly caused by flooding and then the suspended sediments settling out in back waters and slower moving areas of the Creek. Both Sebastian and Wilson also suggested that Stantec's claim that the harm of mobilizing toxic sediments and soils could be greater than the benefit, needs to be clarified and proven. Wilson also questioned a number of specific assumptions within the RA including human and cattle exposure to toxic sediments, consumption of farm products (eggs, milk, beef) and more.                                                                                                   ........................................                                                                                                                               Regarding Agenda Item 5.3 (Revised Eastside Groundwater Report) Sebastian stated that it is incomplete as still the bottom 1/3 of the Stroh property has not been sampled by groundwater monitoring wells. Dustin Martin agreed and stated that laterally groundwater had been reasonably delineated but vertically it had not. As an example Dustin indicated that monitoring well OW7-29 at the northern end of the property line between Lanxess and Stroh had the highest concentrations of NDMA and yet was the deepest well tested. This is an anomaly that should have been explained but was not.      ................................................................................................                                                                      As fully expected the Risk Assessment (RA) will save Lanxess millions of dollars in appropriate cleanup costs while giving the veneer of scientific and factual approval. As always the winners are corporations and the losers the environment and humanity.