Tuesday, May 31, 2011


There is zero satisfaction in having your bad news opinion substantiated. Last night I spoke at the televised (Rogers Cable #20) Woolwich Council meeting. I spoke in detail concerning the carcinogenic, teratogenic and probable mutagenic health effects of Dioxins. I also briefly covered some world wide Dioxin disasters. Most interesting were the two questions asked by Councillor Bauman at the end of my talk as well as the questions not asked.

Councillor Bauman is good . He paraphrased my comments as to saying that the Ontario M.O.E. "had the hammer" in regards to Dioxin cleanup at Chemtura here in Elmira. My response was no they did not. The M.O.E. had been followers not leaders in Elmira the last two decades. They would follow the direction and the wishes of Woolwich Council and the citizens of Woolwich. What the M.O.E. require is leadership from the community. I further stated that Woolwich Council has more authority and power in regards to a cleanup at Chemtura than they realize if they would please use it. Councillor Bauman's second question was whether it was Council or the community who should be lobbying the candidates in the upcoming provincial election. Again I responded in the negative and suggested that whether Liberals or Conservatives provincially, they would be wise to get behind the local efforts here to clean up Chemtura's Dioxins. There could be good press or bad depending on provincial support led by our community and Council. In my opinion Councillor Bauman on both these questions was simply trying to redirect and refocus my talk away from Municipal responsibility and point it towards provincial responsibility.

Amazing to me was that nobody on Council brought their committee of Council, namely CPAC, into the conversation. Councillors did not suggest that CPAC was the answer or was the vehicle for Council's action. I interpret this as almost embarassment at the mess they've made of CPAC. Even Council have no confidence in their own creation right now.

The last point I found surprising was that at Agenda Item #3 "Resolutuions to come forward from Closed Meeting" , there were none. I expected Mayor Cowan to be appointed by Council as the new CPAC member and Chair. This was the logical agenda item for this to happen. Unless it happened later, which is unlikely, then despite his Chairing private CPAC meetings and probably the first public one on June 8/11, he is NOT a duly appointed CPAC member. Well!

Monday, May 30, 2011


Credit goes to yours truly, Dan Holt, Vivienne Delaney and also departed CPAC member Lynne Hare for their cumulative efforts to secure the first public CPAC meetings since November 2010. These public meetings are scheduled for June 8 & 15 at 6 pm. in the Council chambers. I do recall last November both thinking and saying at that public meeting that it was a "lame duck" meeting. This was true as I knew that most if not all the members at that time were getting the boot. I certainly did not know that we'd be forced to wait nearly seven months for the next meeting and that it would cost three new CPAC members their appointments.

As I understand it, the M.O.E. will be giving an Orientation Session to the new CPAC members. For Dan and Vivienne, if this includes basic hydrogeology as well as Chemtura specific information such as location of buried pits, waste and pumping wells, this is a good thing. If Ron Campbell and David Marks are either still members and or present for this Orientation, they will have no need for the Hydrogeology 101 course as they are both professionals in the field.

I have two major concerns with these Orientation Sessions put on by the Ministry of the Environment and by Chemtura. Does anyone remotely think that they will be more than an endorsement of the status quo? Do you seriously think that either of these groups are going to criticize hydraulic containment (pump & treat) as the be all and end all for this site? This is where Mayor Cowan will be put to the test. Privately, repeatedly over the months from last summer up until three weeks ago, he has assurred me that he and his buddies (Ron & David) held hydraulic containment in low regard and knew that source removal was essential. Secondly this public meeting will be the acid test for public involvement. Does the Mayor think that public consultation only involves his hand picked friends and buddies or does it seriously include all the public who may or may not agree with either the status quo or that which the M.O.E. and Chemtura will be proclaiming? Will members of the public be permitted to ask questions and to offer alternate plans and opinions? This is the acid test for legitlmate public consultation and involvement.

Saturday, May 28, 2011


This Monday May 30/11 7 pm., Woolwich Council meeting will be televised on Rogers Cable #20. There are a number of delegations presenting including yours truly. My discussion will be in regards to health effects of Dioxins as well as Dioxin issues around the world that are relevant to us here in Woolwich Township.

One of their recommendations to Council was in regards to Grand River CarShare. Essentially they are suggesting a five year contract with Woolwich Township with some conditions attached. This idea is an environmentally sound one and credit should be given to all involved in this opportunity for Woolwich residents.

Are there viable alternatives to the model that we have here in Elmira? The answer is yes and in fact we have two different models currently in Elmira. There is the model that has been underway for years at Sulco Chemical which is a citizens advisory panel that convenes 3 or 4 times per year. There is also the CPAC model which convenes 6-9 times per year and which currently is a committee of council. Both of these models have their advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps a serious reexamination is in order in regards to our current model which is giving the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee such difficulties.

Friday, May 27, 2011


Both of these public notices are in this week's Woolwich Observer. The water study is imperative because there are significant issues regarding products of disinfection in their water supply. The West Montrose wells are in the flood plain of the Grand River and are highly disinfected (bacteria). This years Annual Water Report shows a number of potential health related issues with these naturally occurring disinfection byproducts.

The public meeting for the Cultural Heritage Landscape designation is Tuesday June 21/11, 7 pm. in the Council Chambers. This of course is a big deal in regards to the proposed gravel pit beside the Covered Bridge and the Grand River namely the proposed Capitol Paving Pit and the Murray pit.

Both our local papers have excellent reports on this story which was debated and voted on last week in Council chambers. The Elmira Independent story dated yesterday is titled "Visual impacts of gravel pit under review". Council clearly were split on whether to go ahead with a peer review of the visual impacts after their Staff felt that the impacts were acceptable. This is a tough one because it is so subjective. Council's 3-2 vote in favour of the peer review is understandable. I saw the presentation a few weeks ago which did indicate (subjectively) to me unacceptable impacts. I can fully understand others not being impressed with allegedly unacceptable visual impacts.

Thursday, May 26, 2011


Henry Regier, CM PhD, Elmira, ON

For the past seventy years, hazardous chemical contaminants have been seeping into the soils and aquifers underlying Elmira and have been spreading deeper down and away from the many original sites of contamination. Numerous attempts to prevent, intercept and reverse the continuing release, seepage and spread of toxics have registered some success, but not enough to achieve the goal of returning these waters to drinking quality 20 years hence. Further contamination is still occurring--sometimes episodically due to preventable accidents, always gradually from well-known buried hotspots--and current programs will not achieve the drinking-water goal in 20 years, I infer.

More than any other organization in Elmira, its weekly papers have "kept the faith" in efforts to correct Elmira's problems with hazardous chemicals. The churches have been silent, though many of their members have suffered the harm of chemical contaminants. No local medical professional has taken more than a passing interest in the kind of harm caused by such contaminants, so far as I know. Politicians have seldom played a direct role; when a politician has intervened directly it may often have been to defuse public relations problems related to particular pollution events. About half of the members of public advisory committees have joined the relevant Company and the Ministry in shooting messengers whistle-blowing about serious pollution issues.

In 1984 the US government collected US$180 million from chemical manufacturers for the injuries caused to its soldiers in the American War on Vietnam by dioxins contained in the defoliant Agent Orange. Further lawsuits are still underway. Some of that Agent Orange was manufactured here in Elmira.

In 1987 the International Joint Commission, in a co-ordinative role, initiated a large program in the Great Lakes Basin to correct or remediate some 42 contaminated hotspots along the shores of the lakes and up the tributaries. At that time, none of the hotspots in our Grand River valley was included in that list of "Areas of Concern". I have long sought for the reasoms why hotspots in Elmira, Guelph, Cambridge, etc., were kept off that 1987 list and have never found anyone who would give me a reason.

No coherent comprehensive strategy to correct historic and on-going contamination of Elmira's subsurface ground and water has ever been made public. The current mix of programs is a non-rational jumble of ad hoc responses to public concern; no public servant or service has ever been required to provide a public rationale for the mix or an accounting of the successes and failures of any particular initiative, so far as I know.

Much has been learned scientifically about the hazardous contaminants that are part of Elmira's problem. As more has been learned about their effects on living creatures, including humans, scientists have found additional reasons for concern. I have no doubt that many residents of Elmira, and downstream in the Grand River Valley, have suffered and are now suffering from effects of this toxicity. With some of these hazardous chemicals, the greatest harm is done at the foetal and infant stage; this harm may cause lifelong impairment of health, if not premature death.

At times when some corrective action was planned and undertaken in response to public concern, numerous kinds of hazardous contaminants have simply been ignored. With those contaminants that have been addressed selectively, only some of their hazardous effects were taken into account during the design and implementation of partial corrective measures.

In my own professional life since 1960 I developed general competence in the science and statistics of risk assessment. During the ten years in which I was a member of one of Elmira's public advisory committees, it became obvious to me that some of the scientific and technical work conducted ostensibly in aid of the correction of Elmira's contamination was of shoddy quality.

For example, years ago one Company and the Ministry agreed that a "site-specific risk assessment" should be undertaken to assess whether a particular case of public concern warranted any corrective action. I then undertook an arduous investigation of what the Company's and Ministry's scientific-technical advisers understood about the science and statistics of such risk assessment. I failed to find a single person associated directly with the company or the ministry who had competence beyond following a long protocol that focused primarily on the process rather than the substance of the risk assessment. Even so, I learned that a crucial early step--objective peer review of the frame of reference--had been over-looked or ignored.

Years ago some undergraduate and graduate engineering students enrolled in my courses at the University of Toronto. Had such students submitted reports of technical projects like those sometimes provided for Elmira's problems, they would have received failing marks. Under public duress, the "technical experts" serving Elmira's polluting companies and Ontario's pollution-fighting ministry did provide professionally-responsible information, sometimes. Years ago I asked for a copy of the professional code of practice from an executive of one Company's technical advisory firm and was told that the firm provided the kind of services for which they were paid.

Admittedly, the reality relevant to hazardous contaminants is complex beyond full comprehension by even the most competent expert. Purposefully incomplete reporting of available information, or reporting of results of biased analyses would complicate the underlying complexity further. But ways can be found of summarizing and presenting information that provide sufficient insight to make progress in correcting the contamination process.

The relevant Company and Ministry responsible for correcting the contamination of the subsurface grounds and waters have long ignored a request for a three-dimensional map of all the inter-connected aquifers (watery-gravely layers) and aquitards (dense-clayey layers) underlying Elmira. Such a three-dimensional map, together with reporting of contamination concentrations in different aquifers as "plume diagrams", would provide useful insight for public advisory committee members. Do Company and Ministry employees fear the "public empowerment" that would come with such information?

Some of Elmira's chemical companies are committed to a voluntary program called "Responsible Care" conducted by an association of chemical industries. In effect, a member Company negotiates the details of a practical code of conduct with representatives of the Municipality and agrees to be held accountable every few years according to an established protocol. In return for good behaviour, the Company may expect that the Municipality will share some of the risk associated with inevitable "accidents". So any court action following such an "accident" might lead to less expensive compensation or penalty costs by a Company for a Municipality or its residents. Do the Municipal representatives on "Responsible Care" teams realize that their participation may limit the compensation by the Company for harm done? Does the Municipality stand behind any consensus shared by its representatives on a particular "Responsible Care" team? Could such representatives be sued, following an accident, for collusion concerning bad practices by a Company?

During the ten years I served on a public advisory team in Elmira, there were many, many occasions when some personnel serving the Company and the Ministry took exception to what was said and argued by members of the public advisory team. They took exception to any comments that were "undiplomatic" for example. Regularly a senior representative of the Ministry would preface any comments in response to a direct question with a caveat that he himself did not possess expert status with respect to the question asked, and then wander off sonorously in a time-consuming monologue that drifted away from the issue. These and related tactics to marginalize committed public advisors were often sucessful in splitting an advisory committee. Companies (and political parties) buy professional services with expertise in such obfuscation and refocusing tactics.

Here in Elmira, the new Municipal Council has been working toward a new CPAC, and perhaps even a Municipality-wide re-focussing of efforts directed to correct pollution with hazardous chemicals. If that CPAC continues with the kind of agenda and practices of the old CPAC, then Elmira's problems with hazardous contaminants will likely get worse. It's time for a mid-course correction, with different planning and decision-making. No resident of Elmira has expertise to lead with such a mid-course correction, I infer. Professor Gail Krantzberg of McMaster University has appropriate expertise and has expressed willingness to provide counsel, if asked.

This is the heading of a brief article in Today's Elmira Independent. The story indicates that currently three appointed members of the original seven are no longer on the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee. The first two public CPAC meetings including orientation sessions are scheduled for 6 pm. June 8 and June 15/11. To date yours truly, Chair Julie-Anne Herteis and Lynne Hare, all three for different reasons are off of CPAC. Mayor Cowan is allegedly taking over as Chair and although probably a formality, nevertheless requires public Council endorsement.

Today's K-W Record has the headline "More monitoring for noise agreed to on gravel pit site". This particular pit is on the edge of Cambridge and within 210 metres of residential housing. Although Cambridge Council would not formally object to the pit they did at least indicate their non-support for it. Cambridge Aggregates have agreed to increased noise monitoing and the planting of larger trees as noise buffers.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011


This is the ongoing gravel pit on Middlebrook Rd. near West Montrose that appeared to be having the least problems with neighbours. Despite that the Township's Planning Department were attempting to include two conditions for draft approval. These were the disputed (by the province) vertical zoning as well as a sunset clause for final closing of the pit. Again this condition seems to be more of a problem with the province (M.N.R.) than with the local operator.

The good news is that other bones of contention have been settled including Saturday operation and berms and fencing. I am of two opinions on these issues. Firstly I hate to see a business with a good operating record having to jump through hoops and loops but on the other hand there are many more gravel pit out there which desperately need more control over them including the vertical zoning and sunset clauses. The vertical zoning basically means above or below the water table. This has always been solely the province's domain versus that of the local municipality. Perhaps if the Ministry of Natural Resources (M.N.R.) ie the province had a better record for monitoring and enforcement, there would be less incentive for the municipality to get involved in this issue.

Monday, May 23, 2011


In a nutshell, there isn't one. Woolwich Council have been winging it both recently and three years ago. There have been lots of CPAC members not reappointed at the end of their terms of appointment and lots more who have resigned both mid term and at the end of their term. There have been some who through age and infirmity no longer could attend and even one who passed on. Yours truly however is still the only one booted off in mid term twice. Ironically Council have suggested that I can't follow process. This from a Council who make it up as they go along. Three years ago CPAC held a secret meeting in which I a voting member in good standing was not invited. Talk about breaking process and procedure! Then after a period of several months, Woolwich Council after thoroughly discussing the impasse read ultimatum of three CPAC members, decided to remove me from CPAC. The next Woolwich Council then unilaterally (ie. the Mayor) refused to reappoint any of the old CPAC. This new Council then without so much as a question to the new CPAC members, voted me off of CPAC after five minutes discussion amongst themselves. So much for cooperation and consultation with your own appointees to CPAC. Neither their pathetic Terms of Reference criticized here in the Advocate last week nor any other document can remotely justify Council's behaviour. Clearly the basic foundation of democracy which is the right to speak freely on matters of importance is foreign to our Council. Clearly they are incapable of permitting any deviation in opinion from that of their own uninformed ones. They believe that it's acceptable for their Staff and Mayor to speak disrespectfully to volunteer citizens while leaping upon any perceived slight to their own perfection. Shame on them.

Saturday, May 21, 2011


A week and a half ago (May 11) I posted a story titled "Woolwich are Running Interference for Chemtura". Indeed the fact that Woolwich and their puppet Committee of Council (CPAC) have been taking up the news both here and in the local media has tended to focus attention away from our favourite local polluter. Today however it's back to business.

On page 3 Conestoga Rovers are again attemting to switch horses in mid stream. Footnote 3 refers to reducing pumping at W5A&B in order to limit interference with on-site pumping at Chemtura. This is hardly news and from day one thirteen years ago many of us wondered about this tug of war between on and off-site pumping. Also of interest is the apparent other reason for limiting pumping at W5A&B which has been dropped. That is the pulling of elevated levels of NDMA, Chlorobenzene and Ammonia from
the W4 area behind Varnicolor Chemical towards W5A&B.

I have on a number of occasions at public CPAC meetings pointed out the amateurish and error filled groundwater maps of CRA. Hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland has actually been so helpful as to agree with my facts and ask Conestoga Rovers (CRA) to be more careful. This month's Progress Report is also amateurishly done although it's not the groundwater maps. This may partially be due to the fact that the old CPAC sold the farm and made concessions including reductions in the production of these maps thus they aren't here at all this month. What CRA have done is some sort of collating/production gaffe. A number of Tables from Attachment A are duplicated and included in the text section at the front.

Lindane is again on the march and rising during 2010 and 2011 in the SWS surface water sytem in the southwest corner.(Fig. B.5) Also Toluene, Ethyl benzene and Xylenes are low but detectable in the MISA (municipal industrial strategy for abatement) drains discharging into the Canagagigue Creek. Even more surprising is that there are small but measureable contaminant increases in the Canagagigue Creek between upstream and downstream locations(Table C.2). This is especially surprising considering the dilution factor after all the rain we've had through April this year.

Finally, literally as always, on page 6 item 7.0 REMEDIATION OF FORMER OPERATING POND AREA it states: "There are no new activities to report for April 2011." In my opinion they should add to this "With God's grace and the assistance of Woolwich Township, this will go on forever." This of course is in reference to the 1991 Control Order issued upon Uniroyal/Chemtura ordering the removal of DNAPLS as a contaminant source. Shame on the lot of you!

Friday, May 20, 2011


I have from time to time, over the last twenty-two years as well as recently been accused of being a thorn in the side of Chemtura, their consultants Conestoga Rovers & Assoc. and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. I have also been accused of being a watchdog , calling a spade a spade and of having little patience for horse manure, bafflegab (polispeak) or out and out liars. I’ve been told that I sometimes use an accusatory tone and that I out and out blame polluters who have poisoned our water.
To all of those charges I proudly plead guilty. I certainly have been accused of more than this although mostly by the uninformed or those with vested financial interests, contrary to those of the public. One of the cutest accusations was by Wilf Ruland, former part time hydrogeologist to CPAC. To my face he called me an ankle biter. If he is stupid enough he will do this a second time and I will do my utmost, then and there, to prove he’s not a liar. Less cute charges and lies include being disruptive and or not following process. As far as my lacking people skills the truth is I have lost the ability to swallow lies being shoveled willy nilly by our elected or unelected officials. This is my biggest sin. Monday May 9/11 at the Woolwich Township Building the lies were coming fast and thick and I’d been a “good” boy for six months . I’d had it and I responded then and there and called out those who were doing the lying. This is my most unpardonable sin by political standards. This is why I got kicked off of CPAC again. Honest citizens, informed or otherwise , have no concerns regarding myself.
Far too much deference is given to elected officials opinions. Far too much deference is given to the opinions of consultants paid for by the polluters. Far too much deference is given to the opinions of the Ontario M.O.E.. All of these groups are unable to back up their opinions with either logic or unbiased science. They back them up with money, power, influence and by calling their detractors names. Such as overzealous, impatient, over-the-top and shit disturbers.

Reporter/Editor Steve Kannon was present at the Woolwich Council public meeting on Tuesday May 10/11. He heard for himself three reasons why WOOLWICH COUNCIL "rebooted" me. Either he's forgotten them or today's Observer should more clearly indicate that it is Mayor Cowan speaking, not Steve Kannon. It had NOTHING to do with my relationship with my fellow CPAC members. The reasons were one blog (here), a couple of e-mails to & from CPAC members and my presentation to Council that evening. I had been working very hard with Dan, Lynne, Vivienne and trying unsucessfully to engage Julie-Anne. The other two were mostly unavailable for business reasons (Ron & David). Indeed I had e-mails from two of my fellow CPAC members supporting my presence and right to speak to Woolwich Council. This week's Observer is now on-line.

Other than that, today's article in the Observer is factual and accurate. Indeed three members have bitten the dust after waiting patiently for six months to be publicly appointed to CPAC. Three out of seven didn't even make it to the first public meeting NOW scheduled for June 8/11, courtesy of Dan, Vivienne, Lynne and myself. Without our pushing it would have been July at the earliest.

No surprise that Mayor Cowan is looking for more recruits. Yes my absence was one of the demands nay ultimatums of Pat M. and Susan B. however Mayor Cowan did a splendid and appropriate job of burning those bridges. Let's see if he and they can kiss and make up. Do not forget the real issues! Chemtura's imminent reverification (CIAC) and removal of Dioxins (Agent Orange) from GP1 & 2. The fact that either Council or SMT (Snr. Managment Team) are "handling" this is cause for alarm. CPAC, once again you are being pushed aside allowing Council to be in charge of Chemtura issues. You are the fall guys. Chemtura will be "reverified" and you CPAC will take the blame and heat down the road when Chemtura screws up again, as they inevitably will.

Thursday, May 19, 2011


First there were eight. Pat, Ron O., Susan, Sandy, Ken, Sandra, Gerry, Richard. They were summarily (& privately) dismissed last October 26/10. Then they all withdrew their Applications this spring as well, in protest.

Then there were seven. David, Ron C., Lynne, Vivienne, Alan, Dan, Julie-Anne.

The first casualty was on Monday evening May 9/11 at the private CPAC meeting, only convened by the Mayor & Chair Councillor Herteis upon threat of us going to the public Woolwich Council meeting the next evening. Chair Julie-Anne Herteis got up and walked out of this meeting with little or no provocation. Everyone was stunned by her behaviour. EVERYONE was appalled. She resigned as CPAC Chair that evening to Mayor Cowan. The Mayor cheerfully (?) spread the news far and wide such that by the next night at Woolwich Council (Tues. May 10/11) the media present heard about it. As of today this is not yet public knowledge.

The next casualty was yours truly the very next night at Council. The BIG LIE spread by Councillor Bauman, aided and abetted by the In Camera comments no doubt, of Mayor Cowan, was that I wasn't a team player. Also that I couldn't follow process. These are the usual and normal prevarications by politicians wishing to blame third parties for their failures. I have responded to those lies over the last few days here in the Advocate. Clearly I was following process and working diligently with my fellow CPAC members, unlike Mayor Cowan and Chair Herteis.

The most recent victim of the politicization of CPAC is Lynne Hare. She submitted her resignation earlier this week. She was a strong CPAC member who found herself in a very difficult situation. Her duty and honest nature were caught against personal loyalties to the Mayor and at least one Councillor.

Two points need to be made. Why would Ron Campbell of Acute Environmental Services and David Marks of Burnside Consulting wish to carry on in this volunteer position? Yes they are friends of the Mayor but they have both family duties and loyalties not to mention their professional reputations and obligations at risk here. I say at risk because any unbiased observer can see that this current version of CPAC is circling the drain. This is not I emphasize because of the talents and abilities of the individual members. It is due to the hidden agenda of the Mayor and possibly one or two Councillors. They clearly wish to make CPAC a puppet of Council rather than to make it a vehicle to remove Dioxins (Agent Orange) and other contaminants still buried on the Chemtura property.

The last point is this: SPIN SPIN & more SPIN. I think that when the Mayor and Council make these resignations public you can count on a gooey mixture of love, duty, busy lives, family etc. as the excuse for Julie-Anne's and Lynne's resignations. Just look at the timing and the ongoing media outcry around CPAC. Look at the delay in publicly announcing these resignations, especially Julie-Anne's. Her resignation was discussed at the In Camera meeting of May 10/11 and should have been announced at that evenings public Council meeting. Of course as they were giving me the boot to try and stifle the CPAC unrest, they didn't want to honestly link her resignation to the CPAC difficulties.

Or should I say the Mayor finally blinked? On Monday evening 7 pm. at the Woolwich Township Building May 9/11 we were given a date to make a date. Although there were a number of "last straws" along the way, this one was beyond all reason or stupidity. We were told that at the first Orientation Session for CPAC members on June 8/11, we would then determine a date for the first public CPAC meeting. After all our protests, explanations and entreaties we were given a date to make a date. Well the pressure is starting to build. This you will see in my next post today. The first date (still unannounced) for a public CPAC meeting will be June 8/11 at Woolwich Council Chambers.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011


The former Councillor and long time Chair of CPAC dragged the former CPAC (Crompton Public Advisory Committee) into the clutches of Woolwich Council. Yes, from 1991 untill approximately 1997, UPAC & CPAC were dominated by friends of Uniroyal Chemical. Unfortunately that included the politicians of Woolwich Township, hence making CPAC a committee of Council was a very bad idea if you didn't have friends on Council.
No where in these current Terms of Reference is it stated that CPAC is supposed to be subservient or under the control of the Township or Council. Nowhere in the Terms of Reference is the Township given the authority to dismiss duly appointed members mid term. If the Municipal Act or any other Provincial legislation so empowers Council, then it should be clearly enunciated in these Terms of Reference including the relevant Sections and Paragraphs.

1. deals with the structure. The way it's currently worded there are four "sectors" each with one representative and one vote plus: 4 individual members at large from the community again with one vote IN TOTAL. This is undemocratic & ridiculous
3. members are "assigned" to particular sub-committees such as air, water & public education with public representation as required??? Does this mean that Council at will can parachute in non members to stack these committees?
5. The Township can appoint a seven person Executive. Also ridiculous for an original seven person CPAC now down to what five or less?
8. "a quorum for a committee meeting shall be a majority of the voting member GROUPS." I capitolized the word groups. There are supposed to be 7- 12 members but there are only five groups. At our private CPAC meeting last Monday I attempted to clarify that we all had votes. I was ignored and shut down by the Mayor and CAO. When I spoke at Council against this Executive idea I stated my expectation that each appointed member has a vote. Apparently not. THIS IS UNDEMOCRATIC AND AN ABOMINATION.
9. "A simple majority of all the voting member GROUPS is required to transact all other business.". Again I've capitolized the word groups.
13. "Closed sessions can be held, but only for matters that are permissable under the Municipal Act." What a joke! This has been violated by the new CPAC including LAST EVENING. Woolwich citizens your Council & Staff are in violation of the Municipal Act yet some of them hypocritically state that I can't follow Process.

Allegedly the entire old CPAC withdrew their Applications in protest of these Terms of Reference. This was I felt a bit of grandstanding considering that they already knew that they weren't being reappointed. Nevertheless as much as it pains me to say it, yes they were right, these Terms of Reference are garbage and an abomination to independent public consultation. PROVINCE of ONTARIO & MINISTRY of the ENVIRONMENT, PLEASE TAKE NOTE. WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP ARE ABUSING YOUR PUBLIC CONSULTATION INITIATIVES.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011


True, they don’t really care if public consultation is legitimate but what they do care about is that it at least appears half legitimate or better. Our new Mayor has turned this into a world class fiasco and it’s getting worse by the day. Having one municipal Councillor on a 7 person, 7 vote committee is one thing. Replacing that Councillor after she has resigned, with the Mayor AND while having two of his buddies on the committee is ridiculous. David Marks may very well be known and respected in his field (hydrogeology). The Mayor has advised that he will be doing part time hydrogeological consulting work on behalf of Woolwich Township. So far so good but then it becomes ridiculous. The Mayor has appointed him as a voting member on CPAC. The Mayor has appointed himself Chair of CPAC. David Marks can work in Guelph but other than being the Mayor’s friend don’t you think living here for the last few years as well as now might be a consideration? Don’t you think taking money from the Mayor and Council while voting on CPAC beside the Mayor is a conflict of interest? He is not a resident of Woolwich Township and thus has no business as a voting member on this committee.
Regarding the title above, I e-mailed a number of big shots in the Ministry this past Sunday. Along with the ongoing drama around the current membership I also made sure that the M.O.E. knew about how the old CPAC were summarily rejected. At the time I thought this was from the Township’s position of knowledge. In hindsight it was just as much from their position as petty bureaucrats.
In regards to fulfilling my promise to release more of the e-mails to the Mayor, CAO of Woolwich and Councillor Herteis from their CPAC appointees I am having second thoughts. The content of these e-mails from my CPAC colleagues went to proving that the majority of CPAC were initially confused, then upset and finally outraged by the Township’s obfuscation, stalling and verbal drivel. Many of the comments from my CPAC colleagues are highly critical as they should be. That being said the fact is that two wrongs rarely if ever make a right. It has been respectfully suggested to me that there is a certain violation and betrayal of trust involved in releasing publicly what were meant to be private communications. I am of two minds when I consider that the contents generally speak to the misbehaviour of elected officials in regards to CPAC. Therefore today will be a comprimise. I am releasing an e-mail but it does not speak critically of the Township Staff or Politicians. It shouldn’t be the least bit disconcerting to my CPAC colleague as in fact it’s primarily descriptive and indeed of a complimentary nature.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:51 PM
Add sender to Contacts
rcampbell@acuteservices.com, lchare@golden.net, lgr@epix.net, v848@yahoo.com, jaherteis@woolwich.com
Thank you Dan and I would be pleased to be offerred the opportunity to make a presentation to CPAC. Alan

--- On Tue, 5/10/11, Dr Dan wrote:

From: Dr Dan
Subject: Re:
To: "Lynn Hare" , rcampbell@acuteservices.com, "Vivienne Delaney" , "Julie-Anne Herteis" , "Al Marshall" , "Dave Marks" , "Todd Cowan (not the office)"
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 4:40 PM

While I think that the timing of your presentation tonight at the Council meeting is not the best, I support your right to express your opinion. As a famous American once said..."I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" or words to that effect. Your position tonight won't be a "minority" position since we as a committee have not voted on or taken a position on anything...which I am sure is part of what you are discussing tonight. I agree with you that this year presents a favorable "alignment of the stars" regarding getting something done with the only leverage we seem to have. I do wish that you were able to hold off on the public stance for a little bit, but I do understand.

As I sat in the meeting yesterday listening to David B and everyone else state that they really don't know what has taken place due to the way CPAC was handled in the years prior to our appointments it struck me that we have a valuable resource, you, who can give us that history and bring all of us up to speed. You are the only one capable of providing the rest of the committee and township staff with information on the thinking that went in to the Request for Action of 2003 and, using that as an outline, make an orientation presentation to all of us. I would highly recommend to my fellow committee members and the township staff that we have a workshop dedicated to listening to your presentation so that we can be better prepared for the next four (3.5) years. It seems to me that we, as a team, need all the available resources and information that we can access. We are having an orientation from Chemtura, Ministry of Environment, and David Marks to cover their take on the problems why not a historical orientation? Seems we'll be missing a huge amount of relevant data if we don't take advantage of all resources.


Monday, May 16, 2011


Recently I posted that EVERY new CPAC member both knew Mayor Cowan personally AND had a long time relationship, as in many years, with him. I was correct that all knew him personally prior to being appointed to CPAC (including me) but one of us did not know him for very long. Sorry! Alan

Mayor Cowan last Tuesday was NOT a CPAC member. He gave my CPAC e-mails to Woolwich Council to show that I was upset with CPAC's "Failure To Launch". These e-mails and my Tues. May 10/11 Advocate posting were then used as the excuse to kick me off CPAC. Mayor Cowan finally realized that I would not sell out CPAC goals just for the dubious "prestige" of being a member. Unlike Mayor Cowan I'm going to be releasing CPAC e-mails written to me and the other CPAC members for a good cause. This I will be doing all week. These e-mails will show that a majority (4 of7) of CPAC members were rightly very upset with the delays and stalling by then Chair Councillor Herteis. This will prove firstly that my comments Tuesday evening at Woolwich Council were shared by CPAC and that I had been working as a team member with them. It will also show that I was scapegoated by Mayor Cowan. Notice I'm not blaming the entire Council. Some of them got dishonestly snowed by others. I will also be sending these e-mails to the local newspapers, K-W Record and Toronto papers. Last Saturday's (May 14) posting here displayed an e-mail written by Lynne Hare of CPAC that was endorsed by three others including myself. Today I will be showing you the readers the previous e-mail from Councillor Herteis as well as Lynne Hare's strong response . It advised Julie-Anne Herteis that Lynne was attaching the letter endorsed by us.

RE: CPAC Meeting Schedule Sunday May 8, 2011 1:23 PM
From: “Lynne Hare” lchare@golden.net
To: JAHerteis@woolwich.ca, lgr@epix.net, ron@acuteservices.com v848@yahoo.com, dmarks@rjburnside.com, agmarshall@rogers.com
Cc: dbrenneman@woolwich.ca, TCowan@woolwich.ca

Looking forward to meeting with you Monday at 4pm. I believe the Robin’s Nest is not an appropriate location to discuss the issues that have been surfacing. This is best conducted at the Township offices .
This meeting would be a good working meeting to set up the may 17th public meeting. It is imperative the public have an opportunity for input into the reverification process!
I have marked the orientation dates on my calendar, in addition I request that these meetings be held in the council chambers and be open to the public so they can hear what the MOE & Chemtura have to say, after all transparency is one of the goals of this committee. A 45 minute presentation is probably plenty and that will allow time for both CPAC members and the public to ask questions.
I have attached a letter concerning the need for the May 17th public meeting. I have added to the Agenda of the 17th that SMT present a list of issues they have been dealing with while CPAC was not operational.
Lynne Hare

From: Julie-Anne Herteis mail to: JAHerteis@woolwich.ca
Sent: May -07-11 3:50 PM
To: Dr Dan; Ron Campbell; Vivienne Delaney; Lynn Hare; Dave marks; Al marshall
Cc: David Brenneman; Todd Cowan
Subject: RE: CPAC Meeting Schedule To all members of CPAC, Todd Cowan and David Brenneman
Anyone that can make it out is invited for coffee at the Robin’s Nest (Church St. beside Elza’s Wine Shop) 4:00 pm Monday may 9th – this Monday.

Saturday, May 14, 2011


The following letter according to it's "Header" was sent by e-mail last weekend to the Mayor, Woolwich Council and CPAC members. I suspect but don't know that perhaps it was not received or read by the Council prior to their Tuesday 6:30 pm In Camera session. The e-mail "signatures" of four of the CPAC members including myself were all confirmed by separate e-mail to each and all of us and therefore besides myself there are numerous others who have proof that as of last weekend a majority (4 of 7) of CPAC members were of like mind regarding the contents of this letter which I spoke specifically to at public Council meeting Tuesday evening 7 pm..

Mayor Todd Cowan, Councillors & Staff,
Woolwich Township
24 Church Street W.,
Elmira, Ontario

Dear Councillor Herteis,

We the newly appointed members of the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee recognize the following:
- There is a huge learning curve in order for us to carry out the responsibilities we have taken on. To that end we welcome the up and coming orientation program the Township and yourself are beginning to put in place.
- We also recognize that this committee has not functioned for the last 6 months and it is a committee that provides an essential role as a liaison between the public and Chemtura and the enormous water and chemical concerns in this community. We are the voice for the community in dealing with these concerns and it is vital we carry out an open line of communication with the company, the Ministry of Environment, and the public.
- We also realize that some issues will require time for us to chart a course for the future and an effective plan needs to be well researched and thought out.

All that said, there are some issues that need to be dealt with NOW. They are time sensitive! They are as follows:
- We need to appoint 1-2 new CPAC representatives for the Reverification review ‘Responsible Care” scheduled in June. At present, former CPAC member Pat McClean is the representative named.
- We need to identify the issues and concerns the Township, the public and the Committee want to be assessed during the CIAC Reverification process. The process occurs every three years and from what we have been able to determine Chemtura has not always been a good neighbour of this community.
1) BLE25 chemical release and Chemtura’s poor response to notify the Community.
2) The failure to complete the “Request for Action” items passed by CPAC and approved by Council in 2003.
- We also need to prioritize the outstanding items not completed in the “Request for Action” document so that there is time for Chemtura to begin to deal with the most urgent this summer.
So far item #2 the cleanup of the Dioxins in GP-1 and GP-2 appears most urgent and certainly achievable in 2011.
- Senior Management Team presentation of issues and concerns in the last 6 months.

Councillor Herteis we request that you book council chambers as the location. We will need to advertise this ASAP.

If it better that we make the above request at the Council Meeting this Tuesday, we would be happy to do so.


Lynne Hare
Alan Marshall
Dr. Dan Holt
Vivienne Delaney
David Marks ( away and unable to endorse this letter

Since Tuesday night's removal of myself, by Council, from CPAC (we'll call it a "rebooting") I have expressed my displeasure in regards to their failure to address serious and imminent Chemtura issues, in a calm and dispassionate method. I think however I have been less stellar in my response to the personal assault by some Council members with their public comments. Therefore to that I have descended to their level with personal comments and insults. In regards to Councillor Bauman he's going to have to wait a while for any apology. Councillor Herteis however is a different case. Firstly I don't believe that she made any public personal comments or insults about me as Mark Bauman did. Secondly Councillor Herteis in my opinion has from the beginning been thrust into an impossible situation. My interpretation and understanding is that she was "volunteered" to be CPAC Chair. Without any further criticism of her whatsoever intended I believe that she had been directed in her actions and or non actions by Mayor Cowan. Therefore she's been under pressure from the CPAC members on one side to get going while probably being told by the Mayor to do the exact opposite. Perhaps Mayor Cowan has a plan but by not sharing it with HIS appointees we're now in a mess. Anyways back to Councillor Herteis: Within the last few days I've made some public direct and rude comments concerning your competency. These were made by me AFTER I was verbally attacked publicly and thus was very upset. Nevertheless you did not deserve public disparagement from me anymore than I did from some members of Woolwich Council. Julie-Anne I am sorry. Alan

Friday, May 13, 2011

First of all apologies for the silence since yesterday but Blogger (Blogspot) which is owned by Google has had substantial technical difficulties since yesterday. This resulted in the temporary loss of yesterday’s postings as well as everyone’s ability to log into their blog/websites.

Hallelujah but both local newspapers are on the same page. Both papers attended Tuesday night’s Council meeting and heard me speak to Council about the interminable delays ongoing since last year. They also heard about the fact that the Mayor and one Councillor have absolutely been blocking the clearly expressed will of CPAC. Therefore Council (less Al Poffenroth) in their infinite wisdom, led by Mayor Cowan, former CPAC Chair Councillor Herteis and past, present and future pseudo environmentalist Councillor Bauman gave me the boot. Both local Editors heard the facts, saw the evidence and correctly concluded that this new Council have also chosen to shoot the messenger rather than address the problem which is Mayor Cowan. The title of the Elmira Independent story is “Council removes Marshall from CPAC” and the story from the Woolwich Observer is titled “On the outside looking in..again”. Councillor Poffenroth, your fellow Council members make fun of your folksy charm but they are the ones who have brought discredit to themselves and to Woolwich Township.

Thursday, May 12, 2011


First off I do understand that there are lies and there are white lies. A white lie could possibly be Mayor Cowan advising the public in a newspaper quote that he is disappointed the old CPAC members withdrew their Applications because he had hoped to have a mix of old and new. It is more than conceivable that he was attemting to avoid hurting their feelings by not being scrupulously honest and advising them and the public that the last thing in the world he wanted was them back on CPAC.

Mark Bauman at Tuesday nite's Council meeting may very well not have lied when he bragged about kicking me off CPAC three years ago. In reality I was at the Council meeting three years ago and Councillor Bauman was absent. This could be an honest mistake on his part although his intent was pretty clear to me,

Mayor Cowan has advised that the old CPAC were not keeping Council advised. I have recently come across Minutes of a Committee of the Whole (2009) meeting. It refers to QUARTERLY Updates to Council from CPAC and indeed was an update by then Chair Pat McLean. Very interesting.

Todd Cowan has repeatedly and unnecessarily reminded me and OTHERS that I was not wanted on this new CPAC by Chemtura, M.O.E., Region of Waterloo and the old gang at CPAC. According to him nobody wanted me on and indeed just like three years ago, there were ultimatums put out by a few old CPAC members. Well!!!

Finally is "selling out" illegal? I used to think that to be illegal it required the exchange of money. Then lo and behold our former Prime Minister is caught accepting $300,000 in a brown paper bag from Karl Heinz Schreiber and he's not prosecuted. Now I'm really confused. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario. What if Chemtura advised the Mayor that as we all know, our new Recreational Facility is having financial problems. What if they said to him that we Chemtura will donate $100,000 to the Facility anonymously. The thing is this cash/cheque will be given to the Township the day AFTER Chemtura's "Responsible Care" reverification is finished. What if they hinted that gee golly wouldn't it be nice to leave the current reverification team in place rather than put new appointees from the new CPAC on the team. Oh and did we mention $100,000 for the benefit of the taxpayers of Woolwich. Now this is a hypothetical scenario but you the readers tell me: Is this "selling out"? It's a tough one isn't it? Therefore the terms co-opted and selling out are particularily subjective. I believe that there has been a behind closed doors gentlemens' agreement of some kind. That is my opinion and it is based solely on my interpretation of a very bad decision to date by the Mayor and one Councillor. If as in my earlier posted article today this decision is motivated for some other reason, then so be it. If it's motivated for some hidden benefit to Woolwich citizens then I say the Mayor is not remotely knowledgable enough on Chemtura matters to be making these decisions privately on his own. It is theoretically possible therefore to "sell out" one set of interests in favour of another and actually to have made a good deal and to have done good. It just usually doesn't happen that way behind closed doors.

As per yesterday's posting I had promised certain information to the readers concerning a meeting Monday night at the Councillor's Boardroom in the Woolwich Township building. Keep clearly in mind this meeting was not only at the insistence of Dan, Lynne, Vivienne and myself but would not have occurred but for the excellent letter written by Lynne and then endorsed in writing by e-mail by the rest of us. In it Lynne very sweetly concluded the letter by asking if Councillor Herteis, Mayor Cowan, Dave Brenneman etc.would prefer we took our concerns and issues directly to Woolwich Council. Unknown to me at the time, Lynne was bluffing. Turns out she has developed a personal relationship with both Councillor Bonnie Bryant and Mayor Todd Cowan. This also explains her presence on CPAC. Turns out each appointee including myself has (had) a personal, long time personal relationship with Mayor Cowan.

At the meeting it was concluded by ALL present including Mayor Cowan that Councillor Herteis entered the meeting with a huge chip on her shoulder. From body language, facial expression, tenseness, followed by tone of voice, snippiness and hostility, she was not a happy camper. She lasted less than an hour and after being mildly disagreed with on a point, stood up and walked out of the meeting without a word. ALL of us were shocked by her behaviour. By this time both Dave Brenneman had left as had Dan Holt. Dan had a previous committment and the time had intentionally and sucessfully been run out by Dave Brenneman's initial monologue followed by others. Ron Campbell, Julie-Anne's next door neighbour, Todd Cowan's friend, CPAC member, summed it up by suggesting that she simply wasn't Chairperson material. All nodded or verbally agreed and Mayor Cowan said he'd take care of it. This he did however it included him telling people privately that she had resigned and the Council would accept her resignation at the 6:30 pm in camera meeting Tuesday nite. He also advised that this resignation would be announced Tuesday evening and in fact some media and others were tipped off ahead of time to this fact. My suspicion now is that they didn't want to link her resignation time wise to my presentation at Council concerning the failure to launch of CPAC. Her credibility is minimal after this so I'm not sure how that can be restored.

Regarding the three "zero to nil" speakers described yesterday, in descending order of verbal drivel that would be CAO David Brenneman, Township Clerk Christine Broughton and then Mayor Cowan. Ron Campbell, Mayor Cowan's good buddy was the fourth person spouting pablum at the meeting. Keep in mind Ron is the environmental professional, however just like a former professional at CPAC before him, instead of speaking to his area of expertise, he is there primarily for his credentials.

FIBBERS: Yup I promised it. David Brenneman, Todd Cowan and Ron Campbell. The funniest part is that I'm not the only one at the meeting who knows it and they commented to me afterwards about it. All three of them with Ron leading the way as the most ingenuous, claimed that the reason the M.O.E. and Chemtura were not remotely prepared in a timely fashion to give CPAC Orientation sessions is because everything got delayed by the "sudden" withdrawals of Applications by the former CPAC members in March. Absolute HOOEY! Mayor Cowan by the day after the election was already blabbing his intention to clean the CPAC house. NOBODY was to carry on. I lobbied hard for Ken Driedger to stay on because he is a person of high character, commitment and honesty. Meanwhile Ron Campbell solemnly advised Monday's meeting that he personally hadn't filed his Application until March. Guess what? Both he and David Marks didn't know they had to file their Applications at all. Their buddy Mayor Cowan verbally told them that they were CPAC members as of last NOVEMBER. Hence at the Council meeting in January (11 ?) when Julie-Anne was announced as the Chair, Mayor Cowan and Council had no Applications from their two professionals in front of them. How embarassing. Thus the Application deadline was publicly extended. You can imagine how this upset the old CPAC members. They finally caught on that all their Applications for membership were in the garbage bin.

Having been recently advised concerning being sued let me say the following. This information is to the very best of my knowledge, accurate and honest. Yes it is my opinion but I was there in person for this meeting. I believe that the taxpaying citizens of Woolwich have the right to know what goes on behind closed doors. I am far more upset with what I see as the betrayal of my fellow citizens via intentional delay and stalling of CPAC, at this critical juncture, than by anything else. I would estimate the probability of the behaviour of the mentioned authorities being do to stupidity or ignorance versus hidden agenda at only 5%. I don't believe they could be this stupid. If I'm wrong and you have no ulterior motive, Todd and company, then I apologize. But for God's sake start listening to the very few honest people with knowledge on this subject. There is one other possible motive for their ridiculous behaviour and that I would characterize as insecurity manifested by "control freak" behaviour. Again could their motive for their incredibly stupid and counterproductive behaviour be due to their own insecurities around their lack of knowledge? I truly don't know, but again as I have for many months emphasize how much and how willing I am, and have been, to help you with my extensive knowledge base (re: Chemtura) . What is the probability of this versus bad intent being their motive? I don't know because here, I am way out of my area of expertise. Again if this is the cause for your nonsense then I apologize for honestly criticizing you. Alan (no one else just me!)

Wednesday, May 11, 2011


Same old, same old. Twenty-two years and running. Why dear citizens do you think we still don't have readily accessible subsurface Dioxins from Agent Orange removed? Why twenty years after the Ontario Ministry of the Environment ordered source removal of DNAPLS from the former operating ponds on the west side of Chemtura has it not been done? Influence and money is the answer.

Last night at Woolwich Council I read verbatim the presentation printed in full last evening here in the Advocate. Approximately 1/2 hour later Councillor Bryant made a Motion to remove me from CPAC and Councillor Bowman seconded it. To his credit Councillor Poffenroth was not there and probably wouldn't have gone along with it on no more than ten minutes discussion led by Mayor Cowan. Their excuse was in regards to e-mails between myself and my fellow CPAC members. Whoop de do! It also included my presentation at Council last night and yesterday's posting here, accurately describing their schmoozing and bafflegabbing meeting of Monday night.

Councillor Bowman is no surprise. He almost gleefully bragged about turfing me three years ago and being able to do it again. Councillor Bryant was a disappointment as I still cling to the belief that she is honest. She was given the mushroom treatment last night by Mayor Cowan at the in camera session. The truly big disappointment and revelation is Mayor Cowan. He has sold out to either Chemtura or the M.O.E., possibly both.

My presentation last night at Council was polite and respectful. Read it for yourselves. Council ignored it because they were told ahead of time at the in camera session to do so by Mayor Cowan. He kicked me off CPAC because I could not be controlled by him. I am extremely knowledgable regarding Chemtura BUT I am independent. Mayor Cowan convinced himself months ago that by appointing me to the new CPAC, I would be everlastingly grateful. After getting the boot from the old CPAC, Mayor Cowan thought he had bought my perpetual loyalty. That would have been true if he had followed through on his promises to bring Chemtura to account. He didn't. That would have been true if he hadn't betrayed CPAC by putting them into a state of limbo. I have begged, pleaded and reasoned with Mayor Cowan, Councillor Herteis and CAO David Brenneman to no avail. THEY ADAMANTLY REFUSE TO SCHEDULE A FIRST PUBLIC CPAC MEETING. They do this mostly not by saying no as much as by bullshitting and bafflegabbing. What they really refuse to do is give any of the new CPAC members an intelligent reason for not proceeding.

In regards to yesterday's detailed posting about the Monday night meeting and the three "zero to nil" speakers I think I will identify them by name tomorrow. It is the least I can do to let them know that yes BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS but you can't fool all the people all the time.

One last point about Monday night's meeting at the Township Building and why I was so inflamed by it. Some of these "zero to nil" folks got caught red handed lieing. Yes they were called on it. One of the most spectacular lies will also be identified tomorrow along with who on the citizens' payroll were doing it.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

WOOLWICH COUNCIL MEETING of May 10, 2011 7 pm.

Good Evening Mayor, Councillors, Staff, Media, and Audience:

Council: Approximately, six months and 16 days ago many of you, to your surprise, were elected to Woolwich Council. A couple of you with extensive political experience under your belts were much less surprised. In that intervening time frame both the novices and the old pros have jumped in , rolled up their sleeves and gotten down to the business of the Township. You all deserve credit and praise for taking on these essentially thankless and frankly underpaid tasks.
So, aside from my well known penchant for sucking up to authority, why am I here tonite? By my count including Committee of the Whole and Council Meetings you have publicly met once in December (Inaugural Council Meeting) and thirteen times in 2011 including tonite. That is proper, appropriate and commendable. Your Committee of Council however, namely the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee has met ZERO times publicly to date. The best we have achieved as of last evening is the setting of a date one month down the road (June 8), to ALLEGEDLY set a date for the first public CPAC meeting . The first proposed Agenda that I sent into the Township had a public meeting date of January 24, 2011. The second proposed Agenda date was for May 2, 2011. The third date was for May 17, 2011. All have been rejected by the Township. As of right now if a date gets mentioned, I’m no longer sure if it’s for 2011 or 2012.
So am I merely becoming a fussy old fart in my old age? Why the unreasonable rush by me to get a public CPAC meeting ? We have a tentative date of June 13 for Chemtura’s reverification as meeting the “Responsible Care” designation of the former Canadian Chemical Producers Association (CCPA). Tentative means exactly that. I’ve been assured by the Township that tentative means June 13 or later. Firstly the Township neither set the date nor reschedule the date. Secondly “tentative” does not mean necessarily later. This reverification is a huge deal for Chemtura and they indeed failed multiple times in the late 90’s and early 2000’s to achieve it. A significant part of those failures were the lack of a proper and open relationship with the community. In other words independent public consultation. Who among us has already forgotten last fall’s dispersal of BLE-25 into our community by Chemtura? Who among us besides the new CPAC members including myself are aware of the July 2003 “Request for Action” that was unanimously passed by CPAC, asking among other things for the removal of Dioxins, better known as Agent Orange from Chemtura’s property?
We have an immediate opportunity based on Chemtura’s reverification and based upon an upcoming provincial election in October. The Ontario government and the Ministry of the Environment will be much more willing to actually remove Agent Orange before the election rather than after. Now is construction season. Now is the time to appoint two new CPAC members to this imminent reverification team.
Woolwich Township you are on the verge of losing this opportunity. Your new CPAC are keen and eager. Please take off the hobbles and let us go. We have been stymied, stalled and delayed and quite frankly excuses, rationalizations and lectures on process, procedure and respect are both offensive and disrespectful.

Alan Marshall Elmira Environmental Hazards Team
Proud CPAC member


I sat in a meeting last evening in which including myself, nine people were present. Of the nine people present, one had extensive first hand knowledge of the Chemtura site, history and political rigamarole. That would be me. One other had an extensive professional, environmental background but by his own admission extremely limited first hand experience or knowledge of the Chemtura site. The other seven people's experience while extremely limited, could probably be charitably expressed as greater than zero to nil. This is not a value judgement of them as persons, merely an accurate depiction of their current knowledge level regarding Chemtura.

The first fifteen minutes of the meeting were devoted to a monologue from one of these zero to nil persons in regards to process, respect, procedure, milk, mom and apple pie. This same topic was then further explored by the next zero to nil person. Then just to be sure that we hadn't missed anything regarding this fascinating topic the professional, environmental person chimed in. In total this running out of the clock via the horse manure method was very sucessful. In total three people had to leave the meeting before it was done although honesty makes me admit that only two left because of time constraints. Three of the attendees attempted to discuss that for which the meeting had been called which, was setting a date for a public CPAC meeting and nominating two CPAC members to the reverification team for Chemtura. They were unsucessful. I attempted to speak and was literally shushed by one attendee and spoken over by others. All in all an absolute classic example of bullshit baffles brains.

Therefore this evening I am planning on addressing Woolwich Council as a delegation probably speaking on my own behalf only. As per yesterday's article here in the Advocate the Stars Are Aligned. However that lucky scenario is only useful if we are willing to seize the opportunity. I have e-mailed and faxed all the Woolwich Councillors and Mayor, CPAC members, M.O.E, Region of Waterloo, Chemtura, Elmira Independent, Woolwich Observer, K-W Record and CKCO-TV. My advice to those responsible for appointing me to CPAC is this. DO NOT EVER SHUSH ME AGAIN AND ANY ATTEMPT TO DENY ME AN EQUAL VOICE AT THE CPAC TABLE WILL BE MET WITH THIS! Alan

Monday, May 9, 2011


We are having a Provincial election here in Ontario, early in October. The next five months is when the Ontario government are most desperate to avoid scandals or even the appearance of scandals. Now is the time when the government will be calling in favours and I.O.U.'s, again for the purpose of keeping issues off the minds of the electorate. Incumbent M.P.P.'s and their parties have a distinct advantage over the opposition when things are quiet.

How does this affect Woolwich Township? Well we currently have a Bio-Fuel plant proposed for in town, gravel pits proposed for West Montrose, Winterbourne and Conestogo and last but not least Chemtura. What an opportunity to finally get some real cleanup and removal of toxic waste from their site. My first thought is the Dioxin in the south-east corner, in two areas namely GP1 & 2. Yes this is the same dioxin which is an impurity in Agent Orange. Conestoga Rovers, the consultants to Uniroyal have told us where it is. CPAC back in July 2003 unanimously approved requesting for it's removal and finally a couple of years back, Chemtura said they would do it. To date it isn't done and delays seem to be the name of the game. The stars are aligned. I think this summer is the ideal time, prior to a provincial election, to get these highly toxic contaminants out of the ground, located beside Canagagigue Creek.

Saturday, May 7, 2011


This weeks' Woolwich Observer has a very good Letter to the Editer in opposition to the huge limestone quarry proposed in Dufferin County, near the headwaters of the Grand and other rivers. The title of the editorial is "Will your children have water to drink?"". As of right now this week's Observer isn't on line so I can't give you a link to this editorial. This Editorial mentions the subterfuge employed by the proponent in that they claimed they were buying property for the purpose of potatoe farming. Secondly the writer is calling on citizens to write both the Premier and the Ministry of Natural Resources. The addresses are provided in her letter.

Friday, May 6, 2011


Chemtura achieved the "Responsible Care" designation from the Cnd. Chemical Producers Assoc'n" (CCPA) a number of years ago. This designation requires reverification every two or three years. The CCPA changed their name to the Chemical Industry Assoc'n of Canada (CIAC) recently. The next reverification for the company is next month (June/11).
This information was recently requested and then confirmed by telephone and e-mail. I must say that Chemtura were very helpful and cooperative in quickly providing this information upon request. As it doesn't happen very often that I compliment Chemtura, let me get it over with all at once. The two time periods that I was not a formal, voting member of CPAC, namely from 1994-2000 and 2007-2011, nevertheless Chemtura through their consultants CRA continued to provide me with monthly Progress Reports and other data upon request. Although clearly as a long time concerned citizen this was the proper thing for them to do, the fact that they did it without pressure or prompting, is to their credit.

Thursday, May 5, 2011


Today's Spin Cycle by Chuck Kuepfer of the Elmira Independent has again hit the nail on the head. The title of his article is "Democracy in a failed system". Among many points he makes is the impossibility of of our lifestyles continuing on for generations to come. Far more likely that our standard of living will fall to that of most third world countries rather than theirs rising to ours. Chuck quotes both local professor and politician Richard Walsh-Bowers as well as John Maynard-Keynes in regards to the damage our economic system is doing to the planet. Essentially the wealthy and priveleged wish to stay that way and hence they are unwilling to accept change that is for the long term benefit of everyone.

I can't believe it but this Sunday May 8/11 is the first anniversary for this Blog/Website. One year of sharing information, updates and opinions on environmental issues that matter to you Woolwich Township residents.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011


On-line I came across "Memorandum Of Oral Decision Delivered By J.G. Wong On January 31, 2011 And Order Of The Board." This is a recent Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (O.M.B.) in regards to the appeal by Hawk Ridge Homes. Their appeal is in regards to alleged failure or neglect by Woolwich Council to either enact an amendment or make a decision about rezoning and regarding their proposed residential subdivision at Union and First St. in Elmira. The Decision basically says that the Parties must resume discussions and that there will be another Pre-hearing conference on June 22/11 at Woolwich Council Chambers, 11 am.. The Parties are Hawk Ridge, Township of Woolwich, Region of Waterloo, Chemtura and Sulco Chemicals.

Tuesday, May 3, 2011


Background information/ Orientation packages have been sent out to David, Ron, Lynne, Dan, Vivienne, Chair Julie-Anne Herteis and myself by the Township. These include everything from Terms of Reference for CPAC to Minutes of the last few CPAC meetings and more. The CPAC members are also cooresponding by e-mail to each and all of us on business matters. I am thrilled to see all of us routinely copying CPAC business matters to everybody and no more of the old nonsense whereby everybody was equal, only some more equal and hence kept in the loop, than others. The plan is that CPAC members, at the very least, are going to have an idea of the big picture first, before attending a formal public CPAC meeting with all the other stakeholders including the Region, GRCA, M.O.E., Chemtura and others.

Monday, May 2, 2011


The basic premise has been that hydraulic containment known as Pump and Treat can clean up Elmira's groundwater to drinking water standards. This idea has been promoted by Conestoga Rovers (CRA), Chemtura, Wilf Ruland (hydrogeologist) and former CPAC member, Ron Ormson. It has been accepted by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (M.O.E.) and most of the rest of the former CPAC members. That the former members accepted it privately (unlike Ron Ormson) and were unwilling to discuss or debate it publicly is to their everlasting shame.

One of the methods that CRA/Chemtura have used to promote hydraulic containment is by never ending psuedo "investigations" of source areas. Multi year, on going private DNAPL sub-committees have assisted them by white washing the truth. CRA have taken their own data, based on accepted criteria, showing easily accessible free phase DNAPL in the subsurface, and then concluded otherwise or they have minimized it's relevance.

On line research indicates that the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) concluded in both 1989 and 1992 that hydraulic containment was not a sucessful strategy to remediate most contaminated sites. The NRC (National Research Council) in 1994 published a landmark study "Alternatives for Groundwater Cleanup". It also concluded that hydraulic containment rarely was capable of remediating groundwater contamination to drinking water standards, especially when source areas were left unresolved. DNAPL experts Dr. John Cherry and Dr. Beth Parker, then of the University of Waterloo, at a meeting in January 2007 with myself, Wilf Ruland, the CPAC Chair and one other CPAC member, made it very clear that leaving DNAPL source areas unremediated in the subsurface was not the way to go. The DNAPL absolutely had to be either removed or chemically destroyed. There are numerous other scholarly studies and articles on-line which indicate the state of the art understanding that hydraulic containment at best only does what it's name implies which is "contain" the contamination. Actual permanent destruction or removal does not occur in any remotely feasible time frame. The alleged treatment is strictly of the tiny amounts of the contaminants which have dissolved into the groundwater. This excrutiatingly slow dissolution literally goes on for centuries.

Throughout the past twenty years plus, CRA/Chemtura have relied on the M.O.E.'s tacit cooperation at public Chemtura Public Advisory Committee meetings. Thay have also counted on having held captive this public consultation committee. Even in the unlikely scenario that CPAC were honestly uninformed, their coverup of the truth after January 2007 was disgraceful and reprehensible.