IS THERE OTHER EVIDENCE OF CHLOROBENZENE DNAPLS OFF OF THE FORMER UNIROYAL CHEMICAL SITE?

 

Yes as a matter of fact there is. There is also evidence of what I view as gross incompetence by CRA and Uniroyal. Now keep in mind that CRA work for Uniroyal and are paid by them. Hence it's difficult to know what CRA may or may not have recommended to Uniroyal versus what Uniroyal's decision ($$$) on the matter may have been. 

I love the following terminology namely "the weight of the evidence" and "on the balance of probabilities". Yes that second one is also used by our judicial system in all their non perfection. Long story short it is the authors of investigations/reports who decide what the weight of the evidence is and or what the balance of probabilities is. Do you know what that means? It means that it is a totally subjective decision entirely based upon the integrity and the biases of the authors of the report. If that means either Uniroyal and successors plus CRA/GHD who are paid by Uniroyal etc. then the decision is guaranteed to be a self-serving one. Ditto for the M.O.E./MECP.  Wouldn't you just love to be the Judge or jury at your own trial?

Newer evidence has included the approximate "excess"  2,000 kilograms of chlorobenzene already pumped out of the off-site aquifers. This "excess" was found by Dr. Neil Thompson of the University of Waterloo and published in his 2017 Conceptual Site Model.  He claimed the source of 2,000 kilograms of chlorobenzene was unknown. Probably it was unknown to him but sure as hell Uniroyal/Chemtura  and CRA all knew that it was off-site free phase DNAPL either from Uniroyal or other nearby industry. 

Other new evidence includes the six to eight potential chlorobenzene off-site sources found and publicly stated by Jesse Wright (Arcadis Inc.) at the June public TRAC meeting.  Finally there are two letters from two of the co-conspirators namely the Ont. Ministry of Environment and CRA written in 2012 approximately six years after I went public to CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee)  about the DNAPL found at the bottom of observation well OW57-32. These letters were in response to pressure from CPAC for them to formally respond to the public advisory committee.  This is the kind of behaviour from CPAC that mayor Sandy Shantz and councillor Mark Bauman declared to be "dysfunctional" . Both co-conspirators (CRA & M.O.E.) did their best to ignore the very strong DNAPL evidence in favour of much weaker evidence (?)  to support their plausible DNAPL deniability goals. Oh and just for the record CRA themselves had in 1998 in writing declared that it was DNAPL that they had found. Only eight years later when confronted by me at CPAC with their 1998 statements did they decide to change their tune. 

This is but a taste of the obfuscation, excuses, delays and deflections that are part of the arsenal of the modern polluter. Do I believe that 100% of polluters exhibit this kind of serious lack of ethics or integrity? I do not and I hope not. Remember that the issue of off-site DNAPL, either free phase or residual, in the Elmira Aquifers will determine the length of time to properly remediate them. Thirty years of not properly treating/remediating DNAPLS both on and off site have been wasted. Plus keep in mind that all the corporate entities plus the M.O.E./MECP have proven themselves repeatedly incapable of being honest  parties willing to do the right thing for the public interest whether human health or overall environmental health. They do not deserve the privilege or duty of being involved any further in the cleanup.