POLLUTERS' TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ARE WRITING NONSENSE AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT

What incentive is there for technical consultants to write quality technical reports that would withstand the scrutiny of other experts and their peers? That is both the question and the problem. There is no incentive. Conestoga Rovers are paid for each and every word they put in their reports by their clients, in this case Chemtura Canada of Elmira, Ontario. There is no peer review as with proper scientific reports. For a hydrogeological report for eaxample to be peer reviewed it takes an individual or a group with money to hire another consulting engineering firm with expertise in the field to do the work. Past Woolwich Councils did spend some money on an allegedly independent hydrogeologist. The results for the money were mixed. Good insights and comments would be quickly retreated from when CRA and the M.O.E. either attacked the position expressed or bluntly just said no to suggestions and recommendations. Hence mixed results.

Currently the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) are requesting funding from Chemtura to pay for peer reviews. While it is appropriate that the destroyer of Elmira's groundwater and so much more should pay for peer reviews; it isn't likely to happen. Why should it? Their consultants CRA have free rein. They can write the most ridiculous, amateurish and riddled with errors bullshit imaginable and who's to dispute it? There's the rub. I can and I do. Most times Chemtura and CRA do their best to pretend serious, written criticisms don't exist. As however I am both a very knowledgable and informed member of the public and I am a member of CPAC's sub-committee known as SWAT; it occasionally is impossible for them to ignore my critiques. Then they have their hired guns (CRA) simply write up another nonsensical, error riddled report.

Currently Chemtura appear to be reneging on their promise of a year ago to improve their pretend off-site cleanup. After severe criticism from CPAC's Resolution of a year and a half ago, they decided to triple off-site pumping and do some off-site source removal via In-Situ Chemical Oxidation. Now we are being treated to CRA's latest written drivel suggesting that the two chosen and appropriate off-site locations for source removal are not tenable. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't; but to date CRA's written rationale is illogical and filled with errors. To add to that Chemtura don't even want to discuss/debate it in the appropriate forum namely public CPAC meetings. Instead they've held a private by invitation meeting only and specifically even banned the local media. CPAC were invited to send a pair of representatives. This is a company used to getting their own way and writing their own rules. The result is they have destroyed our local drinking water and gotten away with it.