A PIECE OF THE DNAPL COVERUP IN JANUARY 2007 AND EARLY 2008

 

SUSAN, PAT & SANDY LIE THEIR WAY INTO CHEMTURA's GOOD GRACES 

In January 2007 Pat Mclean, Chair of CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee), Susan Bryant and myself, both CPAC members, plus Wilf Ruland alleged independent hydrogeologist attended a meeting at the University of Waterloo with Dr. John Cherry and Dr. Beth Parker. The two doctors were world renowned hydrogeology experts and we were there to learn about DNAPLS (Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquids). Wilf Ruland had studied hydrogeology under Dr. Cherry and was of the opinion that leaving DNAPLS in the ground was safer than removing them and possibly remobilizing them further. The four of us drove together and all were in good spirits with possibly some gentle persuasion aimed at myself suggesting that the two doctors knew their stuff and I should pay close attention. No other indications were made as to what they expected from the meeting.

Well both doctors were amazing and informative plus they handed out a set of multiple "briefs" or 8-10 page articles they had written and published  regarding DNAPL presence, effects, and possible remediation. These "briefs" were passed among the four of us and I was a little surprised albeit pleased when my three colleagues suggested that I keep them and read them first. I promised to do so quickly and get them back to Pat, Susan and Wilf who seemed a little non-committal. The doctors then advised the four of us that the old hydrogeological understanding about not disturbing sub-surface DNAPLS had been significantly altered over the decades. Currently the long term damage from DNAPLS was better understood and it was important when at all possible to deal with them via encapsulation, excavation or any other method which separated them from underground aquifers. 

 The return trip home was morgue like. I may even have asked jokingly "Who died?" I really did not understand exactly why the three of them were so despondent. Much, much later things became clearer. I admit that I was naive in the extreme. I really did not, even at that age, believe that people could be so deceptive and manipulative. Regardless I waited patiently for months for Pat (CPAC Chair) to put this incredibly important meeting on the CPAC Agenda. Nothing. I asked Susan as well what was going on. Nothing. Over the summer Pat started getting aggressive asking me if I were "challenging" her. I truly didn't know what the hell her problem was. In late August I wrote a strongly worded  DNAPL report criticizing Uniroyal/Chemtura's lack of DNAPL recognition and remediation. Nothing.

Probably in September the Ammonia Treatment System (ATS) was on the Agenda. As usual I was asked to read it carefully and report my comments to Susan Bryant which I did. I had found a couple of pretty gross errors in the Conestoga Rovers report in which they had picked an inappropriate monitoring well to determine if on-site hydraulic containment was being maintained during a pumping slowdown necessitated by the upcoming ATS work. The pumping well actually was by a "window" through the clay/silt aquitard allowing a direct connection between the Upper Aquifer (UA) and the Municipal Upper Aquifer (MU) . This issue would cause higher groundwater elevation readings from the well making it inappropriate to be used as part of a monitoring pair of wells determining hydraulic containment. Susan seemed taken aback and asked if I would share this information with Wilf Ruland (alleged independent hydrogeologist) to which I readily agreed. He came over to my home and I showed him the data and the stratigraphic Figures demonstrating my concerns. Oddly enough that while he was quite obviously taken aback by what I had found he did not want to commit himself by stating either yes or no to my discovery which I found strange at the time.

To Wilf's credit he did try at a later meeting with Conestoga Rovers (CRA) to convince them to use a different monitoring well.  Without any intelligent reason or rationale they said no and Wilf rolled over like the wimp he is when dealing with authority figures such as apparently CRA and the Ontario M.O.E. My friend and colleague Dr. Henry Regier was present at that meeting and was not impressed by either CRA or particularly Wilf. Susan and Pat supported CRA/Chemtura and to my shock launched an attack upon me suggesting that I was blocking progress of the ATS. Yes I had filed a request for a hearing to the Ontario Environmental Review Board (ERB) albeit I was assured that my review if granted would not inhibit or slow construction progress of the new ATS but merely look at their proposed monitoring well locations and determine if they were appropriate or not. Eventually many months later the ERT advised that indeed the well that I had suggested was inappropriate and should be replaced. This was after the ATS had been completed.

Meanwhile however  Pat and Susan through direct lying and manipulation had managed to get Woolwich Council to remove me from CPAC. That of course was AFTER they had already on their own non-existent authority kicked me off of CPAC. Councillor Ruby Weber intervened and said no way! It had to be a council decision because after all it was Pat Mclean and Susan Bryant back in 2000 who had dragged CPAC into being a committee of council in the first place. I soon learned how deep the disgusting behaviour went as Pat and Susan's complaint morphed from my allegedly inhibiting the building of the Ammonia Treatment System  (ATS) to my being "difficult" and rude to my fellow CPAC members. Well there I am at a private Woolwich council meeting attended by the councillors including first term councillor Sandy Shantz who also sat on CPAC. I figured this would be easy as I asked her in front of her council colleagues if it was accurate that yes I routinely, strongly criticized Chemtura and the Ontario Ministry of Environment but NEVER  ever criticized or disrespected my fellow voting citizen CPAC members. It was an easy and obvious YES answer and Sandy hummed and hawed and refused to commit one way or the other. At that point I took Sandy's measure and knew what she was. She was a lying, go along to get along gutless wonder and she clearly knew that Woolwich council had already decided to get rid of me for whatever reason. Naive as I was it still took me a  while to realize how imbedded Woolwich Council was with Uniroyal Chemical and their successors.   

I was bounced off of CPAC by Woolwich Council in the spring of 2008 but was back on CPAC with a new council by 2011. In 2014 Sandy became Mayor and I haven't been on CPAC or successors since 2015 and wouldn't want to be as I have lost my naivety and realized how corrupt Woolwich Councils have been and how useless that committee is intended to be. Susan and Pat have both moved out of town and Sandy's tenure is ending very shortly (Thank God for all three).

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES: A) DENY, DENY, DENY B) HIRE CLIENT DRIVEN CONSULTANTS C) FORM A COMMITTEE D) HIRE UNBIASED EXPERTS & PROFESSIONAL HELP

A) is of course the cheapest and least expensive. It is always the "GO TO" first response if a citizen or resident has an environmental concern or a complaint. Simply by waiting them out and as much as possible ignoring them you soon find out how serious they are and if they actually have done their homework on the issue.

B) This is both a long and short term solution. Get some company with a few credentials or degrees working for them who are prepared to do at least a tiny bit of background digging but more importantly speak confidently and boldly as if they are the absolute world's best in their fields of expertise. This would include Morrison & Beatty as well as Conestoga Rovers way back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. If they get caught red handed as Brian Beatty did taking out of context some quotes from hydrogeologist Stan Feenstra then simply "consolidate" them as David Ash of Uniroyal Chemical did. Move on to the next, CRA, and see how they do. 

Conestoga Rovers & Assoc. (CRA) did just fine to the point of also being hired by Woolwich Twn. to muddy oops I mean clarify issues around the serious methane problem at the former Bolender Landfill. Yes this is at the north end of Bolender Park where children play including at the splashpad. It was perhaps a little awkward hitting old organics (municipal waste including foodstuffs) while excavating but local residents had indicated that municipal waste was buried behind (west ) their homes earlier on. There had been an active methane gas system drawing out methane gas from the landfill and venting it to the air for years although it was often not working well. 

C) Form a committee. Give it zero power and authority other than moral suasion which rarely works on corporations. Put a few "names" on it and away you go, if necessary for years and decades. Pretending to fix a problem is the next best thing to doing nothing. 

D) Get serious now. This is a one way street into potentially expensive remediation or removal of buried wastes that also by the way include buried industrial wastes from a number of local industries including Uniroyal, Great West Felt, likely Varnicolor Chemical, maybe Borg and who knows how many others. 

With new technology such as that written about in yesterday's K-W Record titled "Waterloo researcher uses microbes to eat methane" which is being studied and researched at the University of Waterloo there are scientific ways to reduce risk and harm caused by explosive methane gas so close to residential homes nearby. All these homes have pilot lights on their gas furnaces, water heaters and other natural gas appliances. If uncontrolled methane enters via the sub-surface through basements or windows then there could be explosions and disasters. Loss of life and resulting culpability however will be mitigated by a Township hiding behind their choice of proven friendly consultants  i.e. B).     

NDMA IS ALSO BIODEGRADABLE JUST LIKE CHLOROBENZENE

 

Isn't it just a son of a gun when you learn basic facts and knowledge about your contaminated water supply 36 years after the event? Only in the town of Elmira in Woolwich Township where municipal and regional politicians instead of standing up for their citizens and constituents would rather back a provincial coverup between the Ministry of Environment, Liberal and Conservative governments and Uniroyal Chemical and successors. If as I've just learned that NDMA does degrade in a reasonable time frame in aerobic environments such as shallow soils and at a slower rate in anaerobic soils then how is it possible to still have it so far above drinking water standards 36 years later? Well!

First of all let me say this: going on 29 years of pump and treat maybe hasn't been doing all the heavy lifting. Likely natural attenuation via biodegradation in the sub-surface has done a lot of that and CRA/GHD/Lanxess are just taking the credit. Not that they would ever deceive us. Hell no!

There are a number of possible reasons why their efforts have been so ineffective despite a quarter century of false promises claiming guaranteed success by 2028. There are most likely other sources of NDMA besides Uniroyal Chemical. The two most likely are Varnicolor Chemical and Borg Textile conveniently right in the middle of the damn plume leaving the Uniroyal site. Sanyo Canada has also been on my radar for a long while albeit with less evidence than the other two long shut down companies. Also interference from the hundred or hundreds of other solvents and chemical compounds both Uniroyal and Varnicolor dumped, spilled and leaked into the natural environment may have slowed the biodegradation of NDMA.

Dissolved chlorobenzene degradation has been slowed down not only due to an excess of nearly 2,000 kg. of it above and beyond allegedly what Uniroyal contributed but also by the fact that being a DNAPL chemical, it dissolves into the groundwater very slowly. Despite that Lanxess are looking at a bioremediation method for chlorobenzene which may or may not produce results. One question I have is whether their recently proposed amendments to stimulate bacterial degradation will work for any other compounds in the groundwater. It does nothing for NDMA  however there is an emerging technology that promotes a particular sub-surface bacteria that breaks down NDMA. This emerging technology uses a compound that most likely will not assist bacteria to break down other sub-surface toxic compounds. 

My understanding is that the emerging NDMA technology needs to be used with caution. It can produce by-products for example such as ammonia which in aquifers already contaminated by ammonia is hardly ideal. Other problems include that its' efficacy can be reduced if the corporate jerks who contaminated the aquifers in the first place were so antisocial and environmentally unwise that they dumped/spilled/buried any and all types and kinds of toxins. In other words because of the variety and sheer volumes of so many contaminants this emerging technology might not work here in Elmira. 

Frankly I still think that Lanxess won't throw good money after bad and actually seriously look at all the poisons in our drinking water courtesy of our local corporate twits and decide to actually go after all of them including dioxins and DDT. It is so much simpler and easier to go through the motions and keep mostly local people attending meetings four or five times a year, chasing shadows.       

   

HERE IS THE REALITY OF ELMIRA'S GROUNDWATER & DOWNSTREAM CANAGAGIGUE CREEK

 

Dissolved concentrations in Elmira's groundwater of NDMA and chlorobenzene are as low right now as they've likely ever been since Uniroyal Chemical graced our town around 1942 and then destroyed our beautiful Creek and poisoned our parents and grandparents. That poisoning was via both air emissions and surface dumping. Dissolved NDMA and chlorobenzene can both be removed via pumping and treating of groundwater. It's the undissolved masses of those chemicals plus the hundred or more conveniently ignored others that is the real problem beneath Elmira. These masses are attached to soils within low permeable aquitards (clay & silt) and as the concentrations within nearby groundwater (sand & gravel aquifers) are reduced these masses slowly back diffuse from the aquitards into the aquifers. It has taken decades for these chemicals to initially diffuse into the aquitards and it will take decades more for them to fully back diffuse into the aquifers. That is part of the problem. Then we have both free phase and residual DNAPL which is an even larger problem. Some of the DNAPL (Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid) came from Uniroyal Chemical, some from Varnicolor Chemical and the source of the long proven DNAPL but denied by Uniroyal/M.O.E. at OW57-32R (beside Howard St. Water Tower) until recently (2014), is unknown. It could be from Uniroyal, Varnicolor or even the former Borg Textiles across Howard Ave. from the former Varnicolor Chemical. 

To further complicate matters is the problem of DDT and dioxins. Perhaps PCBs are also a similar part of this problem. These are all known POPS or Persistent Organic Pollutants that are present in Elmira and the downstream Canagagigue Creek courtesy of Uniroyal Chemical mostly, with Varnicolor and other older local manufacturers on the hook for the PCBs. Generally speaking they have been totally ignored in our groundwater under Elmira whereas they have been tested for and found above all health criteria repeatedly downstream in the Canagagigue ("Gig"). They are all mobilized by solvents which both Uniroyal and Varnicolor had and grossly mismanaged for decades. They are also both dissolved and mobilized in free phase DNAPL which both companies had in spades. They are the elephants in the room which our corrupt Ministry of Environment (MECP) and Uniroyal/Lanxess  pretend do not dissolve in groundwater and hence can be ignored. In fact they do dissolve in groundwater at low concentrations which however do exceed the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS). If they were totally incapable of existing within groundwater and drinking water then why does Ontario have drinking water standards for them?                             

The Canagagigue Creek right now likely has the lowest concentrations of dissolved solvents it has had also since 1942. It has a ton however of DDT, dioxins, PCBs and mercury. While not all of these are  directly due to Uniroyal Chemical; wildlife, fish, the benthic community and human beings have and continue to suffer health effects from them. They have been sampled, tested and talked to death without a single shovel full of them and other Uniroyal contaminants (PAHs) having been removed. However just as with Elmira's groundwater failures there is absolutely no shortage of excuses, magic bullets or other psuedo cleanup remedies suggested mostly to keep idle hands on Woolwich's tightly controlled and phony public consultation body TRAC busy. TRAC is all for public show as they don't have a clue as to what is important and what they should be doing and this is as intended by Woolwich, RMOW, MECP and Lanxess Canada.  

TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW CITIZENS GET CO-OPTED BY POLLUTERS

 

Firstly there probably is not a one size fits all methodology. There is of course a huge incentive for polluters to want to make friends with and cozy up to citizen leaders. Polluters want the appearance of being reasonable,  open to discussion and debate, professionals. Plain stupidity may swing some people over to the corporate ideology but I really don't believe that Susan Bryant is either stupid or a "true believer" in that sense despite her father's corporate background in Rochester with Kodak. I have for some years felt that she was simply motivated by ego, selfishness and status. Maybe that is too harsh although her behaviour is certainly sociopathic. Literally in decades of knowing her I've only seen her break character a couple of times. That requires tremendous focus and determination.

A more generous interpretation may be that her intelligence combined with her sociopathic tendencies promoted her ability to be ruthless. A true sociopath often is smarter than average and leverages that intelligence to get their way. A sociopath does not question their own behaviour as much as the rest of us do. A sociopath knows where they want to go and honest or decent people in their path must be removed by whatever means possible. Susan has behaved towards a couple of friends and colleagues including myself in an absolutely horrifying way. She did it without warning and without regret. Her behaviour was beyond ruthless and brutal. Frankly until I was on the receiving end I did not think it possible for anyone to so effectively and without remorse approach another person, feign friendship and then wait patiently for years to strike from behind. And not to ever feel bad, look sad, remorseful or guilty. And of course never to apologize even decades later. Why would she apologize if she is a true believer in getting what she wants literally by any means and at any cost?

Again maybe I'm being too understanding or gentle in my interpretation of the horrid things that she has done. Maybe in fact she is solely motivated by self importance and status. Yet she continues into her old age to stay involved albeit at a much less intense and energetic pace. She has long stated her desire to have the downstream Canagagigue Creek cleaned up. In my opinion she has sold the farm, given unnecessary concessions to the polluter and sold her own integrity all for promises from long time proven polluters and liars. Promises that to date and since the 1990s are nothing but corporate bull manure. How smart is that exactly? 

In fact I truly believe that Susan Bryant almost singlehandedly with the exception of two wing women (Sylvia Berg & Pat McLean) has been the major reason that Uniroyal Chemical and successors have succeeded in NOT cleaning our aquifers OR the downstream Canagagigue Creek. She has provided them with cover. She has provided them with the appearance of corporate entities who while reluctant to spend cleanup money at least are sitting down and honestly having decades of dialogue with citizens. Unfortunately just like Sebastian and Linda who are long term TRAC members all this does is give formerly Uniroyal and now Lanxess Canada credibility as if they are honestly looking either for a compromise or some sort of acceptable cleanup solution. In fact the companies have been running out the clock for decades now. Talk is cheap, real cleanup is expensive. Susan has received honours and accolades from various government levels including municipal, regional and likely provincial. Governments are even more securely in bed with corporate polluters than Susan has ever been. Honours from them are hypocritical and worthless and Susan knows that but accepts them anyways. Why?  

   

THE BEST DECISION I EVER MADE WAS RESIGNING FROM APTE IN JANUARY 1994

 

It was also the most difficult and it was literally on  a moment's notice. I loved being a member of APT Environment. I loved both the technical reports and data that I was reading, absorbing and questioning as well as the social events they held. My wife and children were also strongly welcomed by the APTE membership and this made the decision to resign in protest on the spot excruciatingly difficult and painful. Of course the contemptible and dishonest behaviour of Sylvia Berg in hindsight was intended to produce that result. Undoubtedly she received at the minimum a Christmas card full of Xs and Os (love & kisses) from David Ash and Uniroyal Chemical. I have over the decades tended to minimize my personal negative impact on the credibility of Conestoga Rovers (CRA), Uniroyal, M.O.E. and other dishonest parties. According to Wilf Ruland (hydrogeologist & good friend of Susan Bryant) I was a quick study and absorbed more hydrogeological knowledge than any other layperson he had met. This was a direct threat to the now proven substandard and cheapest remediation method focusing on hydraulic containment or pump & treat technology. Oddly enough in the early days it was Susan Bryant of APTE who referred to pump & treat as "pump & dump". 

Susan and husband were in India in the fall of 1993. Sylvia, Glenys McMullen and I worked on responding to Conestoga Rovers latest DNAPL report. It was essentially nonsensical in light of the various professionally accepted technical criteria that had been presented such as soil and groundwater concentrations of DNAPL components. I did most of the technical stuff with Glenys and Sylvia editing and discussing specifics with me about our response. In hindsight I was much too naive and trusting and should have been forewarned when Sylvia insisted that my name alone be put on APTE's response. I later concluded she already knew that APTE would not publicly be challenging CRA's report or the December 10/93 M.O.E. (Min. of Environment) report accepting CRA's perverted conclusions in their latest DNAPL report. 

The "on the spot" resignation was due to Rich Clausi resigning after APTE coordinaters accepted Sylvia's DNAPL position that it just wasn't that big of a deal to protest and Sylvia then announced she could no longer work with me on the UPAC committee hence I was off it. Richard's resignation was a surprise but then he was fully up to date on the DNAPL specifics, the APTE co-ordinaters were not and the vote became essentially a popularity contest. Sylvia just like Susan Bryant publicly was strongly against Uniroyal Chemical at that point plus she had been with APTE longer than I.   

DNAPLS were and are the defining problem both on and off the Uniroyal Chemical site. I knew they were a big deal in the early 1990s as I'd read not only CRA and Morrison-Beatty reports on them but also gone to the University of Waterloo main library and read other professional reports describing the long term pollution issues they caused. That said, in hindsight, they have proven to be an even larger problem locally than I could have imagined. They are why chlorobenzene which if as we were falsely advised by Uniroyal and consultants were fully dissolved and no longer existed in the free phase (i.e. non-aqueous) form would have been easily reduced below drinking water standards both by pump & treat as well as by natural attenuation (sub-surface bacteria (bio-remediation)). This has not occurred and they have focused on NDMA's low drinking water standard of .009 parts per billion as the problem when they can't even get chlorobenzene down to its' drinking water standard of 80 parts per billion.

Personally I hated resigning but I knew the truth was obvious and was shocked at Sylvia's behaviour and attitude. She and her drinking buddy (coke / pepsi ?) Glenys totally reneged on their position and attitudes as shown in our joint DNAPL response under the APTE headline albeit only with my name on  the bottom. 

   

THE DIFFICULTY IN KNOWING WHO TO VOTE FOR ON OCTOBER 26/26

 

Past municipal elections I know who was good and who was bad. Who was naughty and who was nice. Who was straightforward and who was scheming and manipulative. This election for me is different because four of the current six councillors are just completing only their first terms in office. Bonnie Bryant is completing her second term as a councillor and generally speaking I'm not even sure about her. I am thrilled that our mayor Shantz is hanging up her hat and pray that she is not a good old Conservative that our Premier will anoint as the new appointed Regional Chair. That would simply be extending our environmental disaster with our groundwater and Creek ("Gig") further onto the regional stage. 

My problem is that I do not know how culpable all the councillors are with Woolwich's head in the sand, let's trust the good folks who have lied and deceived us for decades, and hold steady environmentally. Nathan Cadeau long ago exposed his biases. He got in good with mayor Sandy by accepting the Chair's position on TRAC from a position of total and complete ignorance.  I expect that when she asked for a Council volunteer everybody else wisely leapt backwards leaving Nathan front and centre. All council members were approached by CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) members very early in their start on Council and basically were ignored in the final decisions around TRAC. How much of that was the experienced mayor laying down the law I do not know. 

One proviso I have is that any council member or candidate being backed by local, powerful interests is likely no friend of the public interest. The local, powerful interests have been behind both good and bad developments in our community and their adherents would include Bill Strauss, Sandy Shantz, Mark Bauman, Pat Mclean, Bob Waters etc. If you know of any connections between them and current candidates than my recommendation is do not vote for them.

It is my understanding that Kayla Grant is not running again and if I'm wrong about that then apologies to her. Overall I have no criticisms of her efforts as a councillor.  Schwindt and Burgess also other than following suit with Sandy Shantz's willingness to support a false narrative being sold to Woolwich citizens and residents about both the overall regional water supply and about the failed "cleanup" of our groundwater and Creek, are neither in my bad books. Who is best for the public interest I honestly don't know but that is because I really don't know their backgrounds that well. 

Shantz is also no loss to a generally bad regional Council. She did nothing on the Police Board and mostly nothing for Woolwich as well. That is her legacy. One decision I applaud and that was putting the health/warning signs along the Canagagigue Creek. Other than that, good riddance. She served her local masters well, not the public.