June 13, 2024
TRAC MEETING
Kind of an inauspicious start when the presenters apparently can not pronounce Lanxess. It is neither Lanex nor Lanexs. Similarly NDMA or N-Nitrosodimethylamine is NOT MDMA nor MDNA. Finally sub-surface remediation is known as in situ not in- su just as remediation of contaminants brought to the ground surface for treatment are known as ex-situ not ex-su.. Minor points yes but they reflect poorly upon TRAC's alleged professionalism.
It appears if one of the latest Lanxess recruits has made a serious error. Hadley claimed twice in the TRAC video that one can drink the discharge water going into the Creek. Well I suppose one can drink arsenic, cyanide, bleach or whatever one wants but really she should have warned unsuspecting people about the consequences. I believe her drinking suggestion was based upon reduced NDMA concentrations in the discharge water. Yes they are reduced but NOT to drinking water standards. Somewhere I noticed ND (.2) ppb. and somewhere else (likely in the monthly Progress Report) a discharge to the Creek criteria for NDMA of ND (.14) ppb. Even this lower number is approximately fifteen times higher than the drinking water standard of 9 ppt or .009 ppb. Then of course there are all the other chemicals in the soup that are above the drinking water standard. What for me is the most horrifying is that no one corrected her. Nathan and Hadley for example are newbies. Allegedly Susan, Eric H., Sandy, Tiffany etc. are not. YET NO ONE CORRECTED OR CLARIFIED HER. That is incredible beyond belief. Are they all grossly ignorant or simply too well trained to contradict Lanxess???
TRAC Chair Nathan asked Nadia and Sadie of Conestoga College if in their research they had come across “asymptotic behaviour” by NDMA i.e. NDMA never achieving a concentration of zero over time. I believe that Nathan was trying to dispel or disprove my written comments that Joe Ricker's (WSP) theory of “asymptotic behaviour” was junk science or worse. On the other hand maybe Nathan is secretly either an agent of CPAC or an eco warrior and he was hoping that the ladies would respond in the negative as they did.
The discussion focusing on a pilot test of ISCO (In Situ Chemical Oxidation) totally failed to hit the most significant point. Not only was it a failure under the direction of Conestoga Rovers and Chemtura but according to the first TAG Chair, Dr. Richard Jackson, the failure was due to a completely inept and amateurish effort by those two. Several former TAG members were present back then including Sebastian, Linda and Susan but apparently their memories or courage failed them. I have previously sent the references (TAG Minutes & date) to both Woolwich Council and TAG but if you are unable to access them promptly then rest assured I will so provide for a minimum administrative fee solely to ensure appreciation for my efforts. After all you Woolwich Township have a history of dumping on and scapegoating well informed citizens who work for free, literally for years in the public interest.
I am curious as to whether the admitted loss of hydraulic containment to the Creek is solely a function of normally higher ground and surface water levels in the spring time. Could there not also be an element of continued reduction in shallow aquifer pumping along Uniroyal/Lanxess's south-west corner also contributing to this loss of containment?
So has Hadley stuck her foot in it again? Personally I kind of like her based upon her honesty about being a newbie and being on a steep learning curve. Regardless I was a little non-plussed to hear her advise TRAC that the 2028 deadline actually was neither a deadline nor a timeline. Hadley rather strongly referred to it as a Target !!! My recollection both verbally and in writing (June 2000- Kal Hannif MOE) was that 2028 was a mandated deadline and that we at CPAC were so advised many times of that as was TAG from 2015 onwards. Now if that mandated deadline is not a mandated deadline anymore than that's O.K. This is Woolwich Township and clearly black is white, white is black and any and all Ministry Orders etc. are mere suggestions totally amenable to unilateral amendment, revocation and reinterpretation upon the whim of his/her Majesty the Crown.
There was discussion by Hadley and Eric Hodgins regarding “magic bullets” i.e. a remediation technology that could inexpensively do a masterful job of destroying contaminants and cleaning up aquifers etc. Hadley suggested that Lanxess would likely be the first to ever hear about any magic bullets. Eric agreed that such a magic bullet was not likely to show up. Unfortunately Hadley's five minutes of experience with Lanxess really doesn't give her all that much credibility to date.
Ryan Prosser clarified a lot of misconceptions regarding obtaining acceptable clams for bio monitoring at the Lanxess site i.e. the Canagagigue Creek. As had previously been discussed in detail there are a number of native clam species with adequate populations to use here in Waterloo Region versus going back and getting the clams (eliptio complanata) from Balsam Lake which is outside of our watershed. Jason Rice of the MECP blathered on about a new source of clams and Ryan Prosser again set him straight.
For some reason there was discussion about prematurely cleaning part of the Creek. Prematurely, really more than seventy years after the company started killing it? Hadley, Linda and Susan were involved with that discussion. Susan wanted the Risk Assessment finished first.
Susan frankly shocked me which at this point in time I thought that I was well past. In discussing the proposed new MECP Order with Eric Hodgins (former RMOW) Susan stated that the new Order should NOT first be presented to the public. Instead she wants the public educated first. Educated presumably in the ways of sweetness, lightness, obfuscation, deceit and manipulation so that they will not oppose the plans of the discredited non-saviours of the Elmira Aquifers. She and Eric also discussed six allegedly relevant questions regarding cleanup that some idjit may have proposed. Susan did however make one very interesting comment that I do tend to agree with. She asked why a volunteer group should have to be figuring out where the cleanup needs to be going. She referred to that as being too much and unfair. As she stated both Lanxess and the MECP have the funding and the expertise. Unstated may have been that those two have failed and maybe the only purpose of RAC, TAG and TRAC is alleged “citizen” involvement and hence some responsibility for the final failure.
Dr. Klees the faculty adviser to the Conestoga College students suggested that the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) might be old and out of date. Jason Rice, Eric H., and Hadley all joined in. She repeated her silliness about allegedly dumping clean drinking water into the Creek. Mayor Sandy Shantz made a comment similar to Susan's about “We need to educate the public.” after first saying that the Township needs input from the public. Two entirely different things.
To my relief Sebastian stepped up and rather bluntly suggested that TRAC be careful with their upcoming “Update” to Woolwich Council. He suggested that there were some fundamental disagreements going on within TRAC. WELL!
There were four pieces of correspondence to TRAC including my Delegation to Council back in May about Joe Ricker's "asymptotic behaviour" junk science, self-serving, face saving groundwater pumping failure excuses. There were the usual zero comments, questions or concerns expressed by TRAC.
Alan Marshall EH Team
No comments:
Post a Comment