WOOLWICH COUNCILLOR & TRAC CHAIR IN WRITING STATES THAT SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIATION CONCERNS WILL NOT BE HEARD UNLESS THEY PASS HIS/COUNCIL'S CONDUCT STANDARDS

 

Following below is Woolwich councillor Nathan Cadeau's e-mail sent to seven persons including myself:

"Happy New Year!

Thank you for sharing the article and for taking the time to set out your broader concerns. Questions about environmental risk, regulatory independence, and how information moves from citizens to decision makers are very much within TRAC's mandate, and they are taken seriously.

From a process perspective, TRAC does not exclude substantive concerns because they are uncomfortable or inconvenient. When submissions cross established standards of conduct, individuals are given the opportunity to revise and resubmit so that the substance can still be considered. That option is always available. I don't believe vulgarity or personal attack is necessary to ensure that critical information is heard or acted upon. In governance and regulatory contexts, clarity, evidence, and persistence tend to be more effective and durable. If someone chooses not to revise a submission when given that opportunity, that is a decision they own. Again thanks for taking the time to write.

Take care and talk soon,

Nathan" 

Following is my response telling him that he, Woolwich Council or TRAC have no right to censor substantive Elmira remediation facts and advice because they don't like my choice of words or alleged expletives. They have both a moral and a legal duty to seriously consider researched advice that is in the public interest i.e. restoring Elmira's drinking water aquifers. Anything else is a dereliction of  their duty to citizens and residents and a betrayal of their oath of office.

"Folks: So as I read Nathan's hot air I understand that "TRAC does not exclude substantive concerns because they are uncomfortable or inconvenient." TRAC however obviously does exclude my concerns and others for their own, unilateral reasons. Allegedly they are because those concerns "...cross established standards of conduct..." Well firstly my alleged conduct is none of his f...ing business. What is his f...ing business is remediating Elmira's groundwater and he stinks at doing that. With his intense five minutes of experience on the issue that is hardly surprising. Secondly he and the Township in their infinite stupidity are taking advice from Lanxess, GHD and the Ontario MECP. Woolwich Township apparently don't believe that there is a conflict of interest  which there certainly is. Nathan believes that vulgarity or personal attack are not necessary. I agree it isn't but so what? Just because I referred to the Township as stupid does not absolve them of either their moral or legal responsibility to work on behalf of the citizens of Woolwich Township. Maybe Nathan down the road you might want to fly your bullsh*t reasons for ignoring good advice in the public interest to someone who gives a crap about your feelings. I certainly do not. The Township, GHD, MECP and corporate successors have spent the last 36 years lying about the Elmira Water Crisis to me and the public. I do not reward liars with my respect.

Nathan do your f...ing job

Alan Marshall 

DO ALL THE ELMIRA GUILTY PARTIES REALLY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO AVOID PUBLIC CONDEMNATION & EVENTUAL FORMAL CONDEMNATION FOR THEIR CLEANUP FAILURES & COVERUPS ?

 

Indeed politics makes strange bedfellows. Just look at how Pat McLean treated new councillor Sandy Shantz way back in 2006 after Sandy beat out Pat McLean for a Council seat. Pat was kept on as CPAC Chair by her buddy Mayor Bill Strauss. She then treated Sandy poorly at CPAC meetings by failing to share dates and event times with her. Typical Pat behaviour as I found out later. I also have to wonder if Susan Bryant will eventually be outed/scapegoated/blamed for DNAPLS being dropped like a hot potatoe at UPAC. These "friends" of hers have no honour and no ethics so especially after she passes on and is more susceptible to desperate mud flinging by local politicians and polluters, it likely will occur.  Think about it for a minute. If you are the current, ongoing owner for eleven years prior to the 2028 cleanup deadline failure, who are you going to blame? Local politicians will likely be long gone trying to avoid blame. Your consultants (CRA/GHD) are exactly that "yours". You kept them on when you bought Uniroyal/Chemtura in 2017. You kept on paying them for over a decade. 

Local "activists" are the best target as they've always been. Oddly of course except for Susan Bryant. How strange is that? She received a life time invitation to attend and participate in all public meetings.  Myself I've been on the "outs" since at least 2015 courtesy of mayor Shantz and former councillor Mark Bauman.(Mr. Flip Flop). I, like the rest of the unwashed masses in Elmira, haven't even been permitted to speak at public TAG or TRAC meetings. The filth have even refused my written Delegations to TRAC hence I simply send them directly by e-mail to TRAC members who however never seem interested in either responding or commenting on them. That reflects on them not me.

There are written records of what has been done for cleanup as well as what has not been done and should have been. An honest focus on DNAPL should have occurred immediately in late 1989. The same thing with Dioxins and DDT. Did not happen. All Uniroyal and successor companies did was claim that DDT and Dioxins are hydrophobic i.e. afraid of water hence they preferentially bind with soil particles, fine sediments etc. Those in charge did not even want to discuss how all the discharged solvents at Uniroyal Chemical increased the mobility of DDT and Dioxins. They certainly did not want to discuss how free phase DNAPL both on and off the Uniroyal site also vastly increased the mobility of so many contaminants including DDT and Dioxins. 

Their own DNAPL silence and disgusting public consultation being limited to only vetted citizens approved by the polluter and his fellow travellors (mayor etc.) has condemned them. TRAC just like TAG are and were a bunch of deferential individuals lacking the confidence to dig in their heels and demand timely and honest answers from the company and their consultants. A current TAG and TRAC member has actually admitted this in writing and submitted it to them. 

    

ELMIRA = DOGPATCH = ASTOUNDING MENTAL GYMNASTICS TO DENY & DEFLECT DNAPL CONTAMINATION OF OUR DRINKING AQUIFERS

 

My renewed DNAPL education continues.  As mentioned yesterday I am somewhat surprised by the large number of factors determining how much free phase DNAPL ends up somewhat captured by filling pore spaces as Residual DNAPL , which can still slowly dissolve into the groundwater, as well as  then how much free phase DNAPL can continue migrating via gravity either vertically downwards or laterally (horizontally). Again this horizontal DNAPL flow depends upon many factors including the slope of the somewhat horizontal surface, the hydraulic head (i.e. ongoing pressure from the source area as DNAPL is continually refreshed from dumping chemical liquid wastes), the size of the pores between clay, silt and sand lenses and so many more.

I have written previously that both DDT and Dioxins and so much more can be mobilized by DNAPL. This is not an opinion but fact determined by geoscientists and other unbiased experts in the field. Furthermore with multiple sites on the Uniroyal property with proven DNAPL presence (M2 at OW88, RPE-3, TPW-2, RPW-5 ) including small quantities of DNAPL having been removed, there simply is no wiggle room left for the guilty parties. 

Eventually over time groundwater will very slowly dissolve dioxins, DDT and other nasties which will end up in detectable concentrations in our groundwater. Despite the low solubility of these compounds nevertheless Dioxins for example have a Solubility concentration in the low parts per trillion (eg. 15-20 parts per trillion  i.e. 15-20 ng/litre). Unfortunately the Ontario Drinking Water Standard for 2,3,7,8 - TCDD  (Dioxin) is only 15 parts per quadrillion  i.e. 15 ppq) .  Parts per quadrillion are a thousand times smaller than a part per thousand which is very close to the solubility concentration of Dioxins in groundwater.

Continued reliance on GHD, the Ontario MECP and Lanxess Canada may be ideal if permanent contamination of our Creek (the "Gig") and our drinking water aquifers is acceptable. If local politicians are willing to stand up and publicly declare that is what they have decided then so be it. But continued lying is no longer a viable option and such an option will continue to deteriorate as we get to the 2028 deadline.   

    

MAJOR DNAPL TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE HAS BEEN AVAILABLE SINCE 1990 & RESEARCH STILL CONTINUES TODAY

 

I am amazed with recent reading I've been doing as to all the factors pertaining to DNAPL migration in the sub-surface. 95% of those factors have never been discussed at public UPAC or CPAC, TAG or TRAC meetings. This is not by accident. Most of these factors including density, viscosity, wettability, stratigraphic slopes, pore sizes, solubility, volatility, groundwater velocity etc. have been known for decades . More recently I have seen technical reports advising that potential and probable lateral (horizontal) migration of free phase DNAPL has been seriously underestimated for decades. Again the factors affecting horizontal migration are many and include of course the volume of DNAPL released at the surface or from shallow lagoons (such as Uniroyal Chemical).  Another obvious factor is how much of this DNAPL is able to penetrate through aquifers and or aquitards vertically. Clearly if the aquitards (clay/silt) are discontinuous or have cracks and "windows" in them then the vertical penetration increases.

A couple of recent reports state that horizontal migration of DNAPL has been found at both 650 metres in one site from the source area and 750 metres at another site. Now two things seem obvious to me and that is the overall ongoing slope of the stratigraphic unit that the DNAPL is moving on as well as the large amount of free phase DNAPL released to the subsurface in order to "push" the DNAPL that far from its' source. I certainly can understand the unlikelihood of these distances from source being anywhere near the norm.

The other interesting tidbit I've begun to understand is how often for example chlorinated solvent sites with groundwater concentrations exceeding 1% still remain without the subsurface DNAPL  being clearly delineated. Here in Elmira subsurface free phase DNAPL has been found both on the Uniroyal site (OW88 near PW4) as well as off-site by the Howard St. Water Tower (OW57-32 (R). This data should have more than rung the alarm bells thirty-six years ago and precipitated appropriate DNAPL action. Instead it was all Uniroyal hands, friends and fellow travellors (including the M.O.E.) on deck to deny, deflect, delay and manage the situation and crisis. By manage I don't mean investigate proper cleanup as much as investigate improper coverup.

INCOMPETENCE & NEGLIGENCE TO THE POINT OF CORRUPTION AND BEYOND - IGNORING & AVOIDING DNAPL PRESENCE & SIGNIFICANCE

 

WORLD CLASS EXPERTS AVAILABLE AT U. OF WATERLOO - JUST DOWN THE ROAD

By 1991 and earlier the Waterloo Centre for Groundwater Research was world renowned.  Despite that none of the so called "experts", consultants or other "suits" ever mentioned that incredible source of knowledge to Woolwich/Elmira citizens attending public UPAC meetings. Our esteemed and long compromised Ontario Ministry of Environment never mentioned or suggested the tremendous value in asking neutral and unbiased in house groundwater experts for information or advice. Instead all our authorities pretended that bought and paid for client driven consultants (Dames & Moore, CRA) were somehow obligated by engineering or public interest principles to speak truth to those paying their invoices. As Steve Quigley of CRA once stated " We are obligated only to the best interests of our clients.".  

I have been reviewing technical DNAPL reports likely for the fiftieth time over the last 36 years. I was introduced to Drs. J. Cherry and B. Parker at the University of Waterloo in January 2007 as CPAC's "DNAPL expert", probably by Susan Bryant. I quickly clarified to the two real experts (Cherry & Parker)  that I was CPAC's amateur DNAPL expert only. Various further DNAPL literature written by these two doctors was distributed to the four of us attending (McLean, Bryant, Ruland & myself) and it was all barely glanced at and handed to me. I offered to read it quickly over the next few days and pass it along to the other three. That offer was never requested or acted upon by any of them to my surprise. 

This meeting and the strong and very clear advice from Doctors Cherry and Parker was never taken to CPAC or discussed at any public meeting. If it was done privately I was not so advised. This was the beginning of the end for me as far as Bryant, McLean and Ruland were concerned. Nevertheless I was still trusting enough to go to Susan and Wilf with my findings later in 2007 on the inappropriate off-site well that Conestoga Rovers (CRA) wanted to use as one half of a monitoring pair of wells (1 on-site and 1 off-site) in order to ensure that shutting down pumping wells on-site for the later ATS (Ammonia Treatment System) would not cause a loss of hydraulic containment (It did.).

Do current Woolwich councillors truly believe that  the methods and procedures to clean up the Elmira Aquifers will not be exposed particularly after 2028 as second rate if not downright incompetent? Do you believe that the knowingly "cheapest and least effective method" of hydraulic containment, despite constant endorsement by almost all past councils, will not be publicly and savagely excoriated? If indeed, as has been arbitrarily removed from public discussion, it turns out that DDT and Dioxins  have migrated off the Uniroyal site westwards as well as downstream (eastwards) via the Canagagigue Creek that there won't be a scandal resulting in a public inquiry of some sort?  The westward migration may very well have been via the DNAPL mobilizing DDT and Dioxins and carrying them along to the Nutrite property as well as by the Howard St. Water Tower (OW57-32 (R). 

DNAPL DENIERS may have saved the responsible polluting companies and the Ontario M.O.E. hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs but what about the health costs past, present and future? Do you want to drink Elmira water again not knowing the truth about what is still in it? 

DID WILF RULAND ALSO PLAY BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET?

 

HIDING DNAPL PRESENCE MAY HAVE DOOMED THE CLEANUP. WHEN WERE DIOXINS & DDT LAST TESTED FOR IN THE ELMIRA AQUIFERS? 

Certainly Susan Bryant has. She with assistance from Sylvia Berg certainly damaged the long term cleanup of the Uniroyal site and Elmira's groundwater by their defence of the M.O.E.s sweetheart DNAPL deal with Uniroyal and CRA. On December 10, 1993 the Ministry of Environment (M.O.E.) accepted  the Conestoga Rovers (CRA) DNAPL report on behalf of Uniroyal Chemical. That December 10/93 Ministry report was a sellout and was only possible because Uniroyal and the M.O.E. had a private, behind closed doors agreement from the two APTE co-ordinaters. Sylvia's vigorous defence of the Ministry's position AFTER she, I and Glenys had written and edited APTE's strong critique of the CRA DNAPL report was shocking and damning of her behaviour. Susan Bryant was in India at the time and failed to reverse APTE's new DNAPL position when she returned..

Wilf, myself , Susan Bryant and Pat McLean attended the January 2007 meeting at the University of Waterloo with Drs. John Cherry and Beth Parker. Both doctors advised that removal or destruction of sub surface DNAPL was important for any long term cleanup of soils and aquifers. Pat, Susan and Wilf never brought these world preeminent DNAPL experts advice back to CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee). They flatly refused when I pushed for a date that the new information would be presented to CPAC. I at that time had absolutely zero knowledge or belief that the three of them were bent beyond all recognition. Months later I was kicked out of CPAC on the red herring that I opposed the Ammonia Treatment System (ATS) which was a lie. I opposed ONE inappropriate and inaccurate off-site well proposed to be used as part of a monitoring pair determining on-site containment . Even that only occurred after I had shown my information and maps to Wilf who DID NOT object to the evidence I presented. In fact he later in a meeting with CRA and Chemtura, Dr. Regier and I and others tried to defend it but quickly folded when CRA simply said no. 

DNAPLS and Susan are a major reason why the Elmira Aquifers will not be clean by 2028. Free phase DNAPL has and maybe still is off of the former Uniroyal site at a number of locations including the Varnicolor Chemical site and by the Howard St. Water Tower (OW57-32 (R). Also very likely DNAPL left the Uniroyal site and flowed next door (westwards) onto the Nutrite property which may or may not also be affecting off-site pumping well W8 to this day. 

Woolwich councillors and regional councillors have made their peace with whatever stories and lies they have been told. Lies however do not break down DNAPLS. Real, honest remediation can do wonders especially if initiated early. Currently Lanxess Canada are allegedly looking at different remediation methods. Great idea although slamming the gate thirty-six years after the DNAPLS have departed the corral is a touch slow. 

  

FURTHER REGARDING NORTHSTAR AEROSPACE, BORGWARNER, TCE & THE BISHOP ST. COMMUNITY IN CAMBRIDGE

 

Gross negligence is usually required for a screwup as severe and life shattering as that which occurred between Bishop St. and the Grand River. I've heard numbers of between 300 and 600 homes were affected by the TCE (trichlororethylene) plume from Bishop St. all the way to its' discharge point into the Grand River. 

Oddly enough it seems that the Chromium contamination has not been addressed which seems peculiar to me. In fact I believe it was the same Chromium vi that was the problem in California that the famous Erin Brockovich was involved with. GE were involved as they owned BorgWarner which occupied a site across the road from Northstar that had also used TCE. At the time of the discovery of the contamination the occupant of that site was known as Rozell who apparently had not been a part of the contamination.. 

Northstar Directors settled with the Ministry of Environment for 4.75 million dollars towards cleanup costs etc. A private. local lawsuit cost Northstar another 4 million dollars still peanuts considering the health damages alone that they had caused.

It seems probable that the outdoor sheds have mitigated some (most?) of the effects of TCE poisoning within the community's homes.  That said nothing can mitigate the permanent health damages from years of exposure prior to the mitigation being initiated. Far too many people have become sick and died prematurely. Yours truly spent an evening in Joyce Hipel's home with her son Tracy and others early on in the crisis. After departing I suffered from a TCE headache with only a couple of hours of exposure. She lived in it 24 hours a day and passed on in 2010. 

Our authorities are world class in minimizing other people's suffering. Their families do not forget.