TAG : STRIKE TWO PLEASE DON'T SWING AND MISS AGAIN

MORE PRIVATE MOE/MECP & UNIROYAL/LANXESS DEAL MAKING AS LANXESS ATTEMPTS TO WIMP OUT OF FULL CLEANUP ...................... I have been very supportive of TAG and its members for several years. That is despite STRIKE ONE a couple of years ago when they permitted/accepted an excavation on the Stroh farm beside the border with Lanxess of only fifteen centimetres or 5.9 inches deep. That was idiotic. STRIKE TWO occurred last evening. That was the apparent decision, according to the TAG Chair, of TAG members out of the public eye to not accept the likelihood that overland flow from Uniroyal Chemical's east side pits had crossed the property line not only at the north end but also further south beside the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB). The north end flow eastwards onto the Stroh property has been proven via even pitiful soil and groundwater testing. Lanxess with MOE/MECP corrupt support have studiously aqvoided soil and groundwater testing around the SDDB hence they can continue to bleat that there is no evidence of overland flow of toxic liquid wastes into the Stroh Drain and area some of which at least has flowed southwards into the Canagagigue Creek. ............. The TAG Chair did not even have the courtesy to explain this so called "decision" of TAG. No reasons given and no rationale as to how overland flow can be admitted to have flowed further south into GP-1 and GP-2 while not flowing via gravity into the lower lying ground surface on the Stroh property both at and immediately east of the Stroh Drain. ..................................................................... As with most bull.... promulgated by Lanxess and friends (MECP, GHD, Woolwich Twp.) it has to be dressed up with a fancy name. Let's see "Optimization" has been taken. So has "Rationalization". So let's call this wimping out of Lanxess's legal responsibilities "Flux Based Approach". Essentially it's an attempt to greatly reduce their pumping and treating of the contaminated Elmira Aquifers by pretending that as long as you have reduced the concentrations near the production wells in an aquifer and that the pumping well is pulling cleaner water from the opposite direction of the contamination source, then you might have enough dilution to make the overall concentration less than the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS). Also other "management" actions can be taken such as combining contaminated water from one well with clean water from wells much further away. Again this is no more then "Dilution is the solution to pollution. This of course is in complete contradiction to the principles of the McConnell Commission which occurred after the Walkertion crisis, massive sickness and some deaths. That commission stated that ALL steps in the water production process had to be protected and independently kept clean. Therefore using contaminated water from a well and then counting on, downstream in the process, treatment to remove either chemical or biological contaminants was unacceptable. The Region of waterloo have set the precedent with their "managing" of contaminated groundwater both in Cambridge and Waterloo for decades. ................................................................................................... Of course this will all be legitimized via our Ministry of Expanded Corporate Pollution (MECP) issuing a new Control Order to replace the one ordering complete cleanup of the Elmira Aquifers. Yes this will require the MOE/MECP to contort themselves and their credibility beyond all belief but they've had lots of practice in so doing.

GHD (LANXESS) CONCLUSIONS REGARDING YESTERDAY"S POST & THE REPORT IT WAS BASED ON

Section 6.3 (Conclusions and Recommendations) are on pages 15 and 16. They are in my opinion typical of Uniroyal/Lanxess and CRA/GHD Conclusions over the last thirty years regarding each and every environmental report published. In other words they are incredibly self-serving, highly subjective and not remotely objective. For example allegedly the extent of groundwater contamination beneath the Stroh property has now been fully delineated. That is absolute bull with only six or seven shallow wells along the Lanxess/Stroh border and only three wells (OW 188- OW 190) both shallow and deep, 240 metres to the east allegedly encompassing the entire Stroh farm and property. Rubbish and nonsense! Also keep in mind that there are multiple aquifers (UA1, UA3, MU, ML, BR) below ground not just one Upper Aquifer (UA1, UA3) and not just one deeper aquifer (MU, ML, Bedrock). The Stroh property goes both much further east as well as much further south and east with the entire Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB) plus areas that it is draining both ground and surface water. Some of both of these are still coming from the Lanxess property. The Conclusions claim falsely with little or no credible science behind them that there are no receptors being impacted. That claim is beyond contemptible. As long as the polluter makes sure that he doesn't test huge expanses of the Stroh property and that he doesn't do a biological study of animals in and around the SDDB who are drinking the water, then he can make and will make all the phony claims that he wants. The Conclusions claim that the groundwater flow directions combined with natural attenuation "...have maintained the integrity of MA groundwater quality beneath the Property...". Again those idiots pretend that detections of NDMA, 2,4 dichlorophenol and 2,4,6 trichlorophenol albeit mostly below the Ontario Drinking Water Standards somehow are O.K. That is just disgusting. They are toxins and should never be in the natural environment at any concentration and begs the question as to how bad they were decades ago. It also begs the question if you have found concentraions 240 metres cross-gradient and off-site why aren't you looking further? Finally they are intentionally ignoring the change in shallow groundwater flow direction caused by the Stroh Drain since 1983. That Drain is pulling contaminated Uniroyal/Lanxess groundwater off-site and over to the Stroh property. Lastly GHD reccommend that all the monitoring wells on the Stroh property should be sealed and abandoned. Good job you @#$%^&*(. Make certain that second or third rounds of testing don't embarass you further. In other words cut and run and bury the evidence behind you. Beyond contemptible.

HOW HAVE UNIROYAL CONTAMINANTS ENDED UP 240 METRES EAST (CROSS-GRADIENT) ONTO THE STROH FARM

The title of the report written by GHD on behalf of Lanxess Canada (formerly Uniroyal) is "Supplemental East Side Off-Site Groundwater Investigation". It is dated May 2020. The contaminants tested for in groundwater, both shallow and deep, are NDMA, 2,4-dichlorophenol and 2,4,6 trichorophenol. Oddly, GHD appear to be using the acronym 2,4-D which I've always understood to mean 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, a herbicide whose raw material is 2,4 dichlorophenol.

Not only were wells drilled along the Lanxess/Stroh border but they were also drilled 240 metres eastwards along the roadway which runs from Church St. (Hwy #86) southwards towards the Stroh home. These wells were OW 190-8, OW 190-29, OW 189-8, OW 189-24 and OW 188-6, OW 188-22. Another well OW191 was drilled closer to the Lanxess/Stroh border.

The three contaminants were all produced whether intentionally or unintentionally in the case of NDMA. Both 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T were mixed together to produce the infamous Agent Orange used in Vietnam as well as in Ontario and New Brunswick. Exactly why GHD chose 2,4,6 trichlorophenol versus 2,4,5 trichlorophenol, I am not sure. All three contaminants were found in groundwater both shallow and deep in the wells along the road into the Stroh farm. The direction of groundwater flow, both shallow and deep, is primarily southwards albeit somewhat westwards as well. It does not on the face of it make much sense to be found 240 metres due eastwards, especially fifty years AFTER Uniroyal Chemical's overflowing east side pits (RPE 1-5) were no longer in use.

These pits definitely did overflow onto the Stroh farm as well as gravity flowing southwards towards the Martin farm and the Canagagigue Creek. One thought I have is that perhaps the volumes flowing eastwards were even greater than I had imagined. Another unworthy thought is that perhaps there was intentional dumping further east or even onto the farm north of the Stroh farm. It is worthy of pursuing which means it is highly unlikely to happen. Lanxess and GHD are certainly capable of coming up with their own self-serving story to "explain" away this contamination so far off the accepted flow directions.

MOE/MECP HYDROGEOLOGIST COMMENTS ON LANXESS 2019 AMR

Maybe I've gotten spoiled with a number of excellent reviews/critiques done by Cynthia Doughty, hydrogeologist for the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Some of them have been regarding past Annual Monitoring Reports (AMR). Hence when I read her four page review (dated July 15/20) of the 2019 AMR for Lanxess Canada (Elmira) I was somewhat underwhelmed. At first read it didn't seem to have the pizzaz, the punch, the blunt criticism of her earlier critiques.

I've now reread it. Possibly Lanxess/GHD have taken some of her earlier comments and criticisms to heart and have produced a clearer, better product. Regardless here is what she is advising them and us. Lanxess are currently involved in doing an evaluation of periodic losses of containment of their Elmira site. Ms. Doughty will report on their evaluation at a later date.

The 2019 AMR advises us that off-site pumping W9 will not be up and running prior to early 2021. While Ms. Doughty does not comment on that I will. It is beyond crap. The claim that W9 has been down since October 2019 is also crap. That well was scheduled to be up and running closer to 2017 than in 2019. The separate Trojan treatment system has been a bust from the get go. It is being finally scrapped and well W9 incorporated into already existing treatment trains.

Ms. Doughty advises GHD that their claim that two Upper Aquifer pumping wells are solely screened in Upper Aquifer 1 (UA1) is incorrect. She states that in fact they are either partially or fully screened in Upper Aquifer 3 (UA3) which has important hydraulic containment implications for the creek ("Gig").

On page 3 of her comments, Ms. Doughty advises that GHD's text does not correspond accurately with the facts in regards to pumping failures by on-site pumping well PW5. For me this is just shades of Conestoga Rovers and their overly optimistic conclusions in their past Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura reports.

Also on page 3 Ms. Doughty suggests that GHD (Lanxess's consultants) have failed to clearly indicate how well the Off-Site Containment & Treatment System (OSCTS) along with the E7 pumping well, succeeded in achieving off-site containment over the entire year (2019). She suggests that the best they did was to prove that they had full containment on December 5, 2019 perhaps leaving the readers with the impression that the rest of the 2019 year was good. That is not adequate according to Ms. Doughty.

Readers please keep in mind that the on-site pumping systems (shallow & deep) are strictly for the purpose of stopping the spread of Uniroyal/Lanxess contamination off-site throughout Elmira and possibly further. The off-site pumping systems however are both for containment and for mass extraction of those contaminants such that eventually Elmira's aquifers will be restored to drinking water standards. The shutdown of Elmira's wells was in both 1989 and 1990 and the current suggested date for cleanup is two to three decades past the provincially mandated date of 2028. Reliance on hydraulic containment only has been a much too slow process as citizens have long argued. Both on and off site source removal of hot spots should have been done twenty to twenty-five years ago to help speed up the cleanup.

PUBLIC BUT VIRTUAL TAG MEETING THIS THURSDAY

The TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting is set for this Thursday July 30 at 6:30 pm. Contacting Lisa Schaefer, TAG Support Person, through Woolwich Township is the way to get included (as a spectator only) in the meeting. It is not anyone from TAG's fault that the public are refused the ability to either ask questions or make comments despite this being a matter of public interest involving the Elmira Aquifers and the Canagagigue Creek. That dishonour goes primarily to Sandy Shantz as she and former councillor Mark Bauman decided to bail out the floundering Ministry of Environment and Chemtura Canada from their monthly public embarrassment that occurred at CPAC meetings when those two parties were completely unable to honestly or directly address legitimate and relevant questions and concerns from CPAC and the public. At the current time it is also relevant to indicate that virtual (i.e. on-line) meetings make sense as we are still in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis.

The package of data received includes Minutes from the February 27, 2020 live TAG meeting held in Council Chambers as well as from two Webinars (July 9 & 16/20) dealing with Risk Assessments. Also included in the package was a written submission from myself dealing with the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB) which included an excellent electronic version of my well known 2 1/2' x 3' map of the east side of Uniroyal/Lanxess Canada as well as two more pages (one included a Conestoga Rovers ground surface elevation contour map and the second was an explanation of my east side Uniroyal/Lanxess map. Two TAG members, Joe Kelly and Dustin Martin also had written comments prepared after the February meeting dealing with the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and the Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC) document. Both of their comments were excellent.

This Thursday's meeting will include an update from Lanxess regarding the Canagagigue Creek investigation and Risk Assessment process as well as more excuses for their off-site groundwater pumping failures including the W9 ongoing pumping fiasco. There may also be a review of recent TAG submissions hopefully including mine. The problem of course in excluding either long term stakeholders from speaking, such as myself and the general public, is that knowledge and relevant information are not the sole purview of either credentialed individuals or of appointed by council members of TAG. There are subtleties and nuances involved with the SDDB that frankly 99% of even the better informed folks are missing. This of course is all music to the self-serving ears of both Lanxess, GHD and the MOE/MECP.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REDESIGN

Last Thursday the Waterloo Region Record carried the following story titled "Activists raise alarm as province passes environmental assessment redesign during pandemic". I have been reading different reports about either Bill 195 or Bill 197 which include environmental assessment "reforms". Once again it appears that our governments are of the attitude that no good crisis should be wasted in passing ideological legislation. If you're a right wing Conservative then that means slashing both labour and environmental regulations whenever you can.

The current Ontario initiative is called the "COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act". It is an omnibus bill that will change dozens of pieces of Ontario legislation. Environmental groups both locally and nationally are condemning the environmental changes suggested in this new proposed legislation. Supposedly the legislation will reduce the time required for governments to approve projects. This is done by dividing projects into high-impact ones and medium-impact projects. The medium-impact projects will go through a streamlined environmental assessment. There are also concerns that more environmental changes to regulations etc. will not be posted on the Environmental Registry for 30 days as they used to be.

Of course the provincial opposition parties will also be upset with any attempts to by-pass legislative debate and oversight. Unfortunately as with all majority governments, opposition parties have very little ability to insist on even the most minor concessions from majority governments.

BAIT & SWITCH: ONE MORE TOOL IN POLLUTERS' ARSENAL

Keep in mind these "tools" all are for one fundamental purpose and that is to psuedo scientifically bafflegab, confuse and intimidate citizens, Ministry of Environment and stakeholders. The intimidation is more regarding the MOE/MECP. If Lanxess/GHD simply publicly told the MOE/MECP to flock off then they might actually drag Lanxess/GHD into court and ask them to repeat that in front of the judge as their defense to legitimate cleanup requests/orders from the MOE/MECP. Instead by hiding behind bought and paid for "experts" as Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura and now Lanxess have done for decades; our favorite local polluter have incredibly upped the financial ante for the MOE to take them to court. Uniroyal and successors have made it abundantly clear that they will fight tooth and nail any and every attempt to order them to do so much as a nickel's worth more of remediation than they can even remotely claim as being unnecessary.

Bait and Switch is all about pretending to listen to stakeholders who have and are still involved trying to clean up the awful environmental damage still existing after thirty years of supposed cleanup and remediation. The basic strategy of the companies has been delay, delay and more delay. It's hoping that time will either break down some of the toxins or that it will allow natural processes to dilute and transport the toxins of their site. This is occurring. To give the impression that the companies are listening to stakeholders, they used to regularly attend all UPAC and CPAC public meetings. By the intervention of Sandy Shantz and Mark Bauman, allegedly on behalf of Woolwich Township, they have removed even that minor inconvenience to the polluter. From monthly public meetings they now attend three to four public RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) meetings per year and if they so feel like it they might attend a TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting once in a long while.

More specifically Bait & Switch involves allegedly embracing a good idea, say for sampling in a specific location, and then slightly modifying it just in case the good idea finds serious contamination requiring more cleanup expenditures. This was done for example along the Stroh/Lanxess property line. Sampling consisted of a limited suite of parameters combined with a width of only ten metres and most ridiculously a depth of fifteen centimetres (i.e. 5.9 inches). As usual this nonsense was not scientifically justified by independent consultants or experts.

The next attempt to carry out a Bait & Switch will be Lanxess's manipulations to avoid properly sampling the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm area on the Stroh (and Martin) property. Under very appropriate pressure from TAG they will likely nibble around the edges of where the soil (and more) samples should be taken. They will likely rely on co-opted individuals to make poor to mediocre suggestions which they will leap on. If TAG members make different sampling proposals they will pick and choose to their benefit. If TAG are unanimous then it may be the result of behind the scenes negotiating and compromising among the members. Polluters just love compromises as they save them millions of dollars which are transferred onto the back of the environment, wildlife and human receptors. It is obvious where sampling needs to take place but Lanxess/GHD as they have to date will resist. It is a damning indictment that it has taken six years and zero sampling has been done since October 2014 when CPAC and their consultant (MTE) exposed the off-site flow of contaminants onto the Stroh farm. By following via ground surface contours, the surface flow of liquid wastes from the east side pits (RPE 1-5) over to the lowest lying areas on the Stroh farm, one can determine where to sample. Lanxess and consultants continue to refuse.