DISSENTING OPINION RE: CHEMTURA *RESPONSIBLE CARE VERIFICATION

Dr. Dan Holt, Chair of CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) wrote a 3 1/2 page dissenting opinion in February 2013 dealing with Chemtura's "sucessful" recent verification by the team representing the community as well as the CIAC (Chemical Inndustry Assoc'n of Canada). I have the word "sucessful" above in quotation marks because I don't want anyone to ever forget that this was a "do over" verification. Chemtura had FAILED the verification; that decision had been communicated to and by the verification team members. What went on between the CIAC abd Chemtura immediately after that, which resulted in another go at it, can only be speculated upon.

I am going to quote verbatim only one small part of Dan's dissenting opinion on his third page namely
" On page 3 of the Responsible Care manual is a listing of the "Responsible Care Ethic & Principles for Sustainability" and the fifth bullet down syates that a company should ...engage with our business partners to ensure the stewardship and security of our products, services and raw materials throughout their life-cycles

I believe that the term "cradle to grave" is used in describing the responsibility of the company for the products they create and manufacture. There are still sources of contamination on the Chemtura property yet the company continues to refuse to properly dispose of them.

I am, along with others, spending volunteer time to work with Chemtura to clean up the mess that both the current employees and community residents have inherited from a time when common practices contaminated our soil, water, and air. Many hurdles have been overcome and life in Elmira today is far better than it was just a few years ago in relation to living in a town with chemical companies. But there are more hurdles to get past. Responsible Care is to be applauded because it has evolved from a public relations effort to encompass a more complete concern for the chemical industry and the communities in which they exist. To that I would suggest that it is still a problem for the industry itself to avoid being judged as a whole by the experiences communities have on a daily basis with one member company. There are vast differences in the way chemical companies interact with communities and to endorse one that is not living up to the standards aspired to by the Responsible Care mandate is to significantly detract from those which do live up to that standard of excellence. There is no way around the fact that verification of a Responsible care company is considered by the public as an endorsement of that company and puts it on an equal basis with all other Responsible Care companies.

The opinions I state in this dissenting vote are mine and are based on the many days I spent touring the facilities at both Elmira and West Hill in July 2011, the teleconference calls with other team members, and the meetings in person in both December, 2012 and February 2013 at the Chemtura plant. But as the Chair of the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee, which is a committee of the Woolwich Township Council and represents the residents of Elmira, I cannot ignore the expressed opinions of those whom I represent in casting this negative vote. To do so would be disrespecting them."

The above is a snapshot into an excellent dissenting opinion written by Dr. Dan Holt. It is honest, specific and from the heart. Chemtura in my opinion did not honestly achieve *Responsible Care verification. Why do I so doubt that they will honestly attempt to live up to its' standards?