Friday, November 25, 2011


All the news can't possibly fit into one posting regarding last night's public CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) meeting hence it will be doled out in small doses over the next several days. Firstly a pat on the back to Jane Glasco (sp?) of the Ontario M.O.E. After months of CPAC pressure from multiple members (and one non-member ie. yours truly) she took the lead last evening and presented a report on the M.O.E.'s status and management of contaminated sites in Elmira. I am of course referring to "other sites". Other than Chemtura/Uniroyal. My opinion is that both Chemtura staff and Hamilton M.O.E. staff would have been happier to listen to a detailed medical report about colonoscopys. They were not happy campers as last night went further to expose their twenty year old sweetheart deal than anything before it. "Other sites" mentioned included the Strauss Fuels (Imperial Oil) site at the north end of town and the currently being remediated Becker's site on Arthur St. and a few others.

The two biggies were not surprisingly the former Varnicolor Chemical site on Union St. and Varnicolor's Lot 91 site at the east end of Oriole Parkway. 62 Union St. (Varnicolor) is now referred to as 84 Howard Ave. Something like changing the Uniroyal name to Crompton and then Chemtura. "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet". Please excuse the upcoming capitol letters but I am excited! THE INDEMNITY GIVEN TO PHILLIPS BY BOTH THE M.O.E. AND THE REGION OF WATERLOO WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE VARNICOLOR SITE IN 1993 HAS EXPIRED AND THE MOST RECENT OWNERS THREE EIGHTS INC. HAVE THE LIABILITY. This is the first time that either Rich Clausi or I had ever heard anything about a 15 year expiry date. One more tidbit that the M.O.E. kept hidden twenty years ago. 200 TONNES MORE OF THE STILL CONTAMINATED SOIL ON SITE WILL BE REMOVED. DEEP WELLS HAVE AFTER TWENTY YEARS FINALLY BEEN ORDERED.

Do not mistake my excitement as necessarily being approval or happiness. Yes this work should have been done long ago and Sebastian and other CPAC members appropriately asked that question. I personally am shocked that Three eights appears to be on the hook. I know they have professional hydrogeological expertise but I think what they really need is both legal expertise AND public support. Why should they be on the hook after the M.O.E. and the Region signed off on this site? In regards to the Lot 91 site it is now owned by Ingram Transfer. Again it was subject to a hydrogeological "study" whose conclusions did not follow either their own data and results, much less the soil samples and other data produced between the mid 80's and 1996. This site will be resampled shortly although the M.O.E. claim to have recently sampled it. Both myself and CPAC have publicly requested all this data asap.

Chemtura much to my and I suspect CPAC's disgust have reneged on yet another promise. They have had the lab results for GP1 & 2 in their possession for months and yet still claim they can't release them publicly. These are the former Dioxin & DDT contaminated areas in the south-east corner of their site. Finally again a variety of CPAC members probably including Ron C., Dan, Vivienne and Sebastian have expressed concerns about CPAC either being circumvented or at the very least left out of the loop regarding a peer review by RWDI out of Guelph. This peer review is in reference to a site wide Certificate of Approval (air) for Chemtura. This C. of A. is another self serving, money saving concession that the old CPAC are STILL attempting to give to Chemtura. This is unconscionable back door lobbying and meddling which of course Chemtura are all in favour of. Richard Clausi (Environmental Hazards co-founder & EDSS representative) spoke to this, comparing the old CPAC's ongoing private dealings with Chemtura, to the Vichy government in France during the Nazi occupation. More to follow on last nights' CPAC meeting.


  1. Old CPAC? are you not an old CPAC member - kicked off twice when I google your name and read the papers - please be honest if you are going to run a blog eh


    for those who are having false hits on this site see above

    P E A C E

  3. WTF? isn't this her Dad's site? i thought there were embedded links to free files?

    Anyone else?

  4. Re: the first comment. Read back and or into the archives. That subject has been extensively covered here in the advocate. Accusing me of hiding anything merely indicates that you've jumped in late and aren't up to date. I will however attempt to continue answering any honest relevant questions dealing with environmental issues particularily here in woolwich township.

  5. Regular readers: I have left a few irrelevant comments up simply to let my readers know that lately the Elmira Advocate has been attracting some unusual attention. I will respond to legitimate environmental criticisms or disagreements with my opinions. More than likely future comments not relevant to Woolwich environmental issues or specific postings will simply be deleted.

  6. Not supposed to be a music site -it is for the environment i think