REGION OF WATERLOO CRAPS ON WILMOT TOWNSHIP: IS WOOLWICH NEXT?

 

Something smells at regional council and the odour is floating all the way westwards to Wilmot Township. Natasha Salonen, mayor of Wilmot, may be trying to please two masters and it's not working.  She appropriately supported a motion to make data on the health of the underlying aquifer in Wilmot, public. It did not pass. She also voted unsucessfully along with four other councillors against the permitted taking of water from the Wilmot Centre wellfield for use in the cities. 

It certainly appears as if the majority of regional councillors have been able to overcome any squeamishness or heaven forbid guilt over the Region surreptitiously having been stealing Wilmot water for the last six years. As one local Wilmot resident stated "If the 1980 agreement cannot be trusted, what protection do we have?"  "Once trust is broken, it cannot be easily rebuilt."

There also appear to be possible discrepancies in the health of the aquifer underlying Wilmot. Regional staff apparently are handing out verbal assurances that water levels are healthy however now we are hearing that citizens complaints of drying up wells and wetlands are not just miles away but nearby the Wilmot Centre wellfield. It seems as if the so called data can be interpreted however the reader so decides. After decades of drivel, junk science and self-serving interpretations of a plethora of technical reports here in Elmira, Ontario I can appreciate how easy it is for highly motivated groups and authorities to interpret and see everything through rose coloured glasses.

Today's K-W Record article written by Luisa D'Amato is titled "Wilmot water pact down the drain". 

ARE DIOXINS AND DDT ACTUALLY DNAPLS AS WELL ?

 

Perhaps twenty years ago I asked that question of Jeff Merriman (Chemtura) at a public CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) meeting. Now most of the time Jeff was a pretty calm fellow but that particular question set him off. He became loud and agitated and behaved as if the question itself was a personal afront and secondly as if I had worded the question more like "You dirty dog are your disgusting Dioxin and DDT contaminants also further disgusting Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLS) that only the most slovenly polluters would have on their site.?".

Now his response surprised me because it was a calm and serious question. I did not know the answer then and am still not certain if they could actually be defined as DNAPLS or not. My suspicion then and now is that they could be according to some DNAPL criteria but possibly usually are not for some reason or another. Also just to be perfectly clear I most certainly did not phrase the question with words like ", "slovenly", "disgusting", "dirty dog" etc..

Mr. Merriman strongly answered my question in the negative while somehow implying that the question itself was somehow inappropriate which for Jeff was unusual. Don't get me wrong, he was a company man through and through but still usually he at least attempted to answer questions, even difficult ones, without being unusually defensive. This response of his was strange.

DNAPLS are known as "sinkers" because their density (specific gravity) is greater than 1 . This means that they will literally descend through both surface water as well as unsaturated and saturated soils (i.e. groundwater). Water has a density of 1 .   Generally DNAPLS also have a low solubility in water which means that unlike NDMA which readily and fully dissolves in water, DNAPLS have a maximum mathematical solubility in water which can limit the extent of their groundwater contamination. For example chlorobenzene is a recognized DNAPL chemical with a solubility of around 440,000 parts per billion.  While 440,000 is a big number it isn't when compared to one billion. In fact as a fraction chlorobenzene can only dissolve in water less than one half part per thousand parts of chlorobenzene. The problem arises with chlorobenzene as with many DNAPLS that their low solubility in water (i.e. 440,000/1,000,000,000) still greatly exceeds their human health drinking water standard of only 80 parts per billion. Both Dioxin and DDT have very low solubilty in water although certainly Dioxins solubility exceeds the drinking water standard which is an extremely low 15 parts per quadrillion or  15/1,000,000,000,000,000).  The Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) does have a health criteria for DDT which makes me believe that DDT under some circumstances can dissolve in water at a rate greater than the ODWS. If not then why have a drinking water standard at all?

There are numerous other DNAPL criteria that I believe Dioxin and DDT have. The real issue may be the  difficulty in finding them and other DNAPLS in the subsurface. This is because they are able to migrate under gravity flow versus the usual subsurface groundwater fllow.  They can also penetrate both aquifers and aquitards and may or may not end up in depressions where they are capable of slowly dissolving over decades and centuries at concentrations greater than drinking water standards. Despite these difficulties, at least since January 2007 when Drs. Cherry and Parker (then Univ. of Waterloo) advised myself, Susan B., Wilf Ruland and Pat McLean that they should be removed or remediated from the subsurface, this world class professional advice has been ignored at CPAC, RAC, TAG and now TRAC.

I believe that both DDT and Dioxins are now probably in the off-site Elmira Aquifers courtesy of this negligence.

 

  

  

K-W RECORD KEEPS THE PRESSURE ON WATERLOO REGION

 

Tomorrow is the big day for the Region as they see whether or not private discussions/negotiations with Wilmot Township mayor Natasha Salonen will bear fruit. Keep in mind that regardless of new municipal governance legislation coming from Ontario, she like all other regional mayors will face the voters this October. Hence if she appears to bend too easily to regional wishes to take Wilmot water she might pay for that  at the polls and lose her job.

Meanwhile two new articles have appeared in today's K-W Record. The one mostly deals with more incentives for large water users to cut back on their usage and the other mentions some water upgrades to the Mannheim Service Area. This second article by Bill Doucet advises that 60 litres per second of water will be restored to the capacity of the Mannheim Service Area via upgrades to the Parkway water system located near Fairway Rd. and Manitou Dr. in Kitchener. Now of course as we already know these wells have long had trichloroethylene (TCE) in them courtesy of the former Deilcraft furniture building on the site. If the name Deilcraft rings a bell it may be due to association with Electrohome and or with Shanley St. in Kitchener which had an abandoned former Deilcraft factory there for many decades also with TCE contamination in the grounwater.

The first article reminds us that "...the region incorrectly combined the capabilities of two separate systems in its capacity calculations.". Now this is yet still another unanswered question by the Region of Waterloo.  Presumably the Record are referring to the two different water treatment systems namely the Middleton System using chlorine versus the Mannheim System using chloramination. Why are there two systems and why can't the treated water be interchangeable whether used in Cambridge versus used in say Waterloo?  At one point in time I suspected that the more highly contaminated (especially with bacteria and viruses) Grand River water required stronger treatment and maybe that was the reason for chloramination versus straight chlorine.

This first article also points out that the region has been over pumping the Mannheim Water Service Area. Presumably again the reporter is referring to specific wells very close to Kitchener's west side and just barely into Wilmot Township. This over pumping was also mentioned in the second article done by Bill Doucet although he referred to it as the Mannheim well field. That description I believe to be more accurate. 

Finally there still has been no followup in the Record regarding the shutdown Greenbrook wellfield (a little too close to the Ottawa St. landfill) or the very long time shut down Woolner and Pompeii wells beside the Grand River very close to Breslau (& Safety-Kleen).  

WHY WAS UNIROYAL SO TERRIFED OF GOING BACK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAL BOARD (EAB) IN LATE 1992 ?

 

The simplest and most straightforward answer is DNAPLS, DNAPLS & DNAPLS. Boy is hindsight ever clearer and easier to see what has gone on behind the scenes. Uniroyal also had the October 1991 sweetheart deal negotiated between themselves and the Ontario Min. of Environment (MOE) to protect.  The  EAB announced their decision, after being unceremoniously dumped by the MOE in October/November 1991, that their jurisdiction remained and provided any party asked for the hearing to restart, they would do so. This also explains the timing to me as to why APTE did not ask for the hearing to restart. Susan B. and Sylvia were both made offers they could not refuse including lifetime permanent seats at the table provided they played ball on the DNAPL issue. 

Despite quotes in local newspapers from Susan B. in late 1992 stating that DNAPLS were the biggest environmental issue at Uniroyal Chemical she and Sylvia willingly sold the farm on the matter in late 1993. This even included a critique of consultant Conestoga Rover's DNAPL efforts by Sylvia, Glenys McMullen and myself on APTE letterhead in the fall of 1993. December 10, 1993 the MOE inexplicably (other than corruption & backroom deals) accepted Conestoga Rovers (CRA) and Uniroyal's plainly pathetic latest DNAPL report. Then APTE (i.e. Sylvia ) inexplicably without prior APTE consultation also accepted CRA and the MOE's new DNAPL position.

I've known for many decades that APTE buggered themselves and the public interest with their bizarre turnaround on DNAPLS in 1993-94 but until 2008 I felt that they had made a horrible but honest decision. I was wrong. The evidence of their (Sylvia & Susan B.) being co-opted by the polluter has only risen since. This co-opting of the citizens group via its' leadership is the primary reason that we still do not have either a restored aquifer nor a clean downstream Creek today.  That said the cooperation (legal or illegal) by our elected politicians has certainly aided and abetted the polluter, their successors and fellow travellors.

Most citizens are straightforward albeit complacent. The ambitious ones often become politicians and quickly learn how to deceive. Those that can't get elected sometimes learn how to gain respect and authority in other ways. Being "friends" with people in power and authority is one of those ways. One that I hope never to learn.  

WATERLOO REGION RELEASES WATER INFO IN DRIBS & DRABS

 

Today's K-W Record has an article written by Luisa D'Amato titled "Regional council advised to rescind restricting draw from Wilmot aquifers".  Now according to a staff report supposed to be debated at regional council this Wednesday; both the Wilmot Centre wellfield and the Mannheim wellfield draw from the same underground aquifer known as AFB2. This particular aquifer is the largest one beneath a very large portion of the Waterloo moraine. The Wilmot Centre wellfield includes wells K50, K51 and K52. Samantha Lernout of Citizens for Safe Ground Water is appropriately demanding transducer data (i.e. presumably groundwater elevation levels)   since 2019 for these three wells. 

While the Region admit to over pumping at the Mannheim wellfield and that it should be allowed to rest and recover, apparently according to the Region water levels are fine in the Wilmot Centre wellfield and can be drawn from further. Now here is where the Region have to expect pushback at least until and after citizens have seen and analyzed water elevation levels from the Wilmot Centre wellfield. I hope that regional councillors are not so stupid as to rubber stamp the taking of more water from Wilmot Township this Wednesday until, at the earliest, citizens and other stakeholders have had time to look at the data presented. Right now the Region's credibility is on thin ice and any more "mistakes" in communicating honest information and data will never be forgotten or forgiven. 

GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN POLITICIANS - WELL THAT WAS BOUND TO BLOW UP IN EVERYBODY'S FACES

 Today's Woolwich Observer has a story by Meg Deak titled "Wilmot demands that Waterloo Region reveal well monitoring data". According to this story there really wasn't a written agreement at all between Wilmot and the Region regarding Wilmot water being pumped to the three cities. So let me get this straight. Is this just like my accountant friend's quote that  "a verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's not written on." ?  Apparently the Region of Waterloo think so albeit that's with some pretty convoluted language suggesting that it didn't really happen it was just all a test of sorts. Hmm maybe the word "test" is the problem. Wilmot are supposed to think that the "testing" being discussed has to do with aquifer capacity and sustainability whereas the Region view the whole thing as merely a "test" of the gullibility of rural politicians.

Wilmot councillor Lillianne Dunstall is having none of it. Especially the part about the Region don't have groundwater levels readily available to share with Wilmot. Next Wednesday Regional Council want to discuss officially and formally taking water from Wilmot Township for use in the nearby cities. Both Ms. Dunstall and mayor Natasha Salonen want more transparency from the Region as well as better accountability as far as monitoring the water requirements of never ending growth. 

NOVEMBER 10, 2022 LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

This letter to the editor (Woolwich Observer) was published over three years ago. As usual exactly zero response or comment from various guilty stakeholders in and around Elmira, Ontario. In one sense that is a good thing. The title put on my Letter To The Editor is "Uniroyal problems persist, but so too does inaction". I view the lack of response, whether verbal or legal, as both an admission as well as  a belated understanding that poorly crafted, weak denials can be worse than admissions sometimes.

My letter to the editor is a broad indictment of the system currently allowing polluters to run their own cleanups with little more than superficial oversight by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE).  Afterall it was the Ministry's shoddy oversight in the first place that got us all into the Elmira Water Crisis and so many more around the province.  Yes certainly the Ministry have been underfunded and understaffed. That has always been an intentional situation by each and every provincial government for many decades ever since Bill Davis first announced the beginnings of that new Ministry. It was simply virtue signaling to the electorate that their government would include environmental preservation among their other poorly managed ministries such as labour and transportation. Make no mistake Mr. Davis most likely had to calm corporate fears of any serious attempt by the government to reverse many decades of corporate and industrial environmental abuse and damage .  

This is the trick of governance. You must appeal to the masses publicly and tell them what they want to hear while at the same time quietly assuring the much, much smaller but powerful elite and wealthy that you will not change the status quo which they love so much. 

My letter focuses on technical reports produced by client driven consultants on behalf of the polluter (Uniroyal/Lanxess).  It also focuses on the Sept. 1, 2022  MOE report titled " Sediment and forage fish monitoring results from September 2020 in Canagagigue Creek".  Finally I focus on the long denied but blatantly obvious conflicts of interest in the entire remediation system here in Elmira.