Saturday, August 30, 2014


CPAC have been chasing the Ministry of the Environment for the specific groundwater cleanup criteria that will be required in 2028. George Karlos of the M.O.E. suggested he was working on it however there will be much more urgency as we approach 2028. This did not sit well with Ron Campbell, Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach, Richard Clausi or CPAC Chair Dr. Dan Holt. All four pointed out that the urgency was now if you really think in fourteen years the current mess in the aquifers will be cleaned. To this George then replied he'd have the specifics within six months.

Discussion wandered briefly back to DNAPLS and graham Chevreau asked the M.O.E. if there were any penalties or consequences for Chemtura's failure to proceed with DNAPL cleanup as indicated in the November 4, 1991 Control Order. This had followed Jeff Merriman again pretending that there was concensus on an issue namely putting DNAPLS on the back burner. I pointed out that Chemtura could usually manage to get a supporter or two on CPAC who would agree with them but certainly a number of APTE members back in the 90's including Richard and I (& Esther Thur) never remotely agreed.

Dr. Dan again raised the issue of CPAC's funding request from Chemtura. Dwight Este suggested that it was still on the table even though they (Chemtura) had been delayed.

Vivienne Delaney raised the issues of Responsible Care as well as of Financial Assurance to be paid in trust to the M.O.E. in order to handle cleanup costs down the road. Both Graham and myself joined the conversation with our concerns. George K. stated that the Chemtura/Uniroyal Indemnity was not an impediment to obtaining Financial Assurance. Dwight Este (Chemtura) advised that Responsible Care was still months away and that they did not have clarity yet from the Chemical Industry Assoc. of Canada (CIAC) as to what the format would be regarding community involvement.

Regarding downstream sediment samples taken by the M.O.E. in Canagagigue Creek; the analysis of them continues. Both Graham and Sebastian had comments regarding both that as well as the lack of off-site monitoring south and east of Chemtura's property line. Graham hammered the M.O.E. on eight month to two year wait times for samples suggesting it was all about political will. His decades of experience tells him that when the will is there lab samples can be turned around within 48 hours. Sebastian advised that he was "shocked" with M.O.E. claims about up to a two year wait for lab results. Regarding east side off-site monitoring I publicly asked jeff merriman for any groundwater results they had from well CH57 just off Chemtura's north-east corner.

The M.O.E. presented information regarding their Sediment Assessment framework. it was interesting and advised about factors other than pure chemistry which determined if there were problems. these included impacts on the benthic communities. Both Susanna and graham inquired whether a conclusion had been reached after the first downstream testing in the mid 90's. Ron Campbell commented upon biomagnification issues. Reference was made by Chemtura to an on-site cleanup of the creekbanks in the mid 2000's. George Karlos indicated that the data from the last three summers hopefully will determine if there are still Chemtura sources discharging DDT or Dioxins downstream. Interestingly a M.O.E. rep suggested that they don't comment on human health issues after they were asked about them.

Sebastian inquired about other contaminated drinking water aquifers still being used . I raised points regarding those occurrences in Kitchenr, Waterloo, Cambridge and Guelph with specific reference to Trichloroethylene (TCE) in numerous Guelph wells. TCE is highly toxic and the cause of horrible health issues including death throughout North America. Susanna somewhat inexplicably stated that there were no wells in southern Ontario that were capable of adhering to the Ontario Drinking Water Standards. She then qualified this by stating that that was due to either hardness of iron in the groundwater. O.K. fair enough.

There was also discussion about the upcoming further scraping of three sites in GP1 to remove more DDT and Dioxins. Chemtura continue to cling to their untenable position that they did either a good or even satisfactory job in GP1 & 2. Richard Clausi pointed out that CPAC's position had been misrepresented at a Grand River Conservation Authority meeting two summers ago. Dr. Dan also commented to that in support of Richard. I further added that Jeff Merriman had been present at that meeting in which CPAC's non support of the GP1 & 2 cleanup had been misrepresented. My inference was very clear that Jeff failed to enlighten the GRCA reps present.

The next public CPAC meeting will be held at 6 pm. in the Woolwich Council Chambers on Thursday September 25, 2014.

Friday, August 29, 2014


It was the first CPAC meeting since June and the CPAC members and SWAT took no prisoners from the Ministry of the Environment representatives. It seems to me that CPAC have long ago figured out that both Chemtura and the M.O.E. consider CPAC as nothing more than token public consultation. The partners in pollution would prefer for CPAC to be widely seen as simply present, acquiesent and quiet. Did not happen last night.

I started the ball rolling in my formal Delegation to CPAC. I briefly quoted Jaimie Connolly, M.O.E. hydrogeologist, from last June's CPAC Minutes. In no uncertain terms Jaimie advised Chemtura and his own employers that hydraulic containment was not adequate. Source removal or reduction of DNAPLS and "hot spots" was required. Then I discussed a court Decision from earlier this month in which a 25 year lawsuit filed against the City of Kitchener and Hogg Fuels was dismissed. The issue was coal tar that the City had relocated decades ago onto the former Hogg Fuel property which then migrated onto the CN Rail property. CN sued but as the Judge stated; CN wasn't so much interested in getting compensation from the City or Hogg as it was in avoiding having to clean up their property. The result was that all parties buffaloed and bafflegabbed the M.O.E. for 25 years while "studying" the contamination and liability. My last discussion involved Trichloroethylene (TCE) contaminated drinking wells over in Guelph. Contrary to the Ministry's recent position that yes there are drinking wells drawing water from contaminated aquifers but only upstream; I pointed out that the Carter, Membro and Emma Wells were all drawing contaminated water from downstream. They then used everything from pumping rates, steel liners and dilution from other wells to attempt to reduce the concentrations of contaminants.

Graham Chevreau of CPAC mentioned an upcoming SWAT report summarizing the history of the Chemtura site and cleanup. He also verbally took the M.O.E. to task about their failure to date to respond with formal groundwater cleanup criteria and to their failure to address remaining significant sources of Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLS) on their site. He was also unhappy with the M.O.E.'s responses to requests for off-site testing of soils just off Chemtura's eastern border. Graham's summation to the M.O.E. was as follows: "In summary and for the record, it is SWAT's opinion that the MOE's efforts at seriously investigating surficial soil and sediment on and around the Site are inadequate, and their management of the cleanup is ineffective. It is also SWAT's opinion that MOE's response to CPAC in general is dismissive, glacially slow, and is unacceptable."

There was silence in the room after Graham finished. Sebastian (CPAC) asked George Karlos (M.O.E.) for his response. George was clearly taken aback by Graham's blunt and forceful denunciation and could only mutter "No comment" and "I have nothing to say".

Much more on last night's meeting will be forthcoming shortly.

Thursday, August 28, 2014


The title of the Waterloo Region Record front page Local Section story last Friday was "Water station down to one pump". Regional Councillor Jim Wideman, as expected, makes comforting noises about built in redundancies as does Thomas Schmidt, commissioner of transportation and environmental services. Apparently having three pumps for two reservoirs is considered by them to be a built in redundancy. Unfortunately there is a problem with their definition of redundancy. If they had real redundancy available then the one remaining pump would be able to pump out both reservoirs at a rate to keep up with demand. What I'm reading however indicates that one reservoir uses two pumps each at 420 litres per second and the other reservoir uses one pump at 840 litres per second. If it was the two smaller pumps that went down then the one remaining pump (840 l/s) could sucessfully pump from one reservoir thus reducing by 50% the quantity of water available from the Grand River. On the other hand if it was one of the smaller pumps plus the bigger 840 l/s pump that went down then the scenario is that 3/4 of our Grand River capacity has been reduced as the one remaining 420 l/s pump presumably can only pump 1/2 as much from one reservoir.

The Region of Waterloo have their own tradespersons available for emergency work. What apparently they haven't yet figured out is that tradespersons need the parts to install on a timely basis. Seven weeks awaiting for two pumps is simply ridiculous. These should have been bought and kept available as replacements years ago. This is not good management for something as vital as our public water system.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014


The Chemtura Public Advisory Committee meeting is tomorrow night at 6 pm. in the Woolwich Council Chambers on Church St. in Elmira. Interestingly enough while Chemtura have their noses seriously out of joint over CPAC's ongoing pressure on them; it would appear that the Ministry of the Environment are also seriously under the gun. Revelations around DNAPLS and inadequate cleanup of Dioxins and DDT in their south-east corner (GP1 & 2) have put a strain upon their credibility.

Questions on tomorrow night's Agenda will deal with the latest field testing in the Canagagigue Creek as well as the further excavation (scraping?) of three 10 metre square areas in GP1 & 2. There will also be questions about Responsible Care, Financial Assurance and a financial report regarding how much taxpayer money the M.O.E. continue to spend on the Elmira Aquifer cleanup.

While CPAC and the public have been well represented at these meetings by the Elmira Independent, I still believe that too many members of the public have a naive faith in the system. They are content to let a few citizens carry the load in the battle against Chemtura and the M.O.E.; and let there be no doubt it is and always has been a battle. Therefore the more citizens who can come out and either observe or participate with questions the better.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014


Lip service has been paid to many recommendations of the Justice O'Connor Report produced after the Walkerton water tragedy. Justice O'Connor stated that a multi barrier approach was required to ensure that water at the end of the pipe was fit for human consumption. These barriers included source protection at the very beginning of the whole water treatment process. It meant not just protecting ground and surface water from future contamination at source but if necessary removing or remediating existing contamination. If that was not possible then the source intake for surface water or the source wells for groundwater had to be relocated. This is not rocket science it is just plain commonsense. That apparently puts it out of reach for our politicians.

Trichloroethylene is a DNAPL chemical. That stands for Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid. It is heavier than water (Dense) and has a very finite ability to dissolve in water. Therefore it can and does co-exist in the subsurface both in the dissolved state and as a separate phase (Non Aqueous Phase). DNAPLS can and do dissolve slowly in groundwater and literally can take decades to centuries to fully dissolve. Throughout that time period although they dissolve slowly nevertheless the concentrations can easily exceed the drinking water standard of 5 ug/litre for TCE (trichlorothylene).

It is quite obvious that there is a subsurface source or sources of TCE upgradient of the Smallfield, Emma and Membro wells. As is usual these reports go to great lengths not to identify guilty industries which have contaminated the public's drinking water. Nevertheless they are known to both the Ministry of the Environment as well as the local politicians. There is no excuse to not have remediated this source decades ago. Somebody or bodies with political and financial pull have managed to avoid being held accountable for these serious health risks put upon the citizens of Guelph.

TCE in the groundwater is not the only problem. It breaks down into Dichloroethylene (DCE) as well as into vinyl chloride (VC). DCE has already been found and measured in some of these wells. While the identification of these longstanding contaminants and their health risks in the Grand River Source Protection Area is a good thing; it begs the question what is the M.O.E. going to do about it. The most likely answer is precious little unless your municipal politicians get off their asses and demand removal of TCE and metabolytes from your drinking water.

Monday, August 25, 2014


Well I guess this is neither surprising nor reassurring. Waterloo Region authorities are not the only ones playing fast and loose with drinking water. I had vaguely known of a possible plume emanating from the Eastview landfill but that was about it. This weekend I got further into the Grand River Source Protection Area reports that are on-line. There appears to be multiple copies such as "Proposed Amended Assessment Report", Draft Amended Assessment Report" and "Final Amended Assessment Report". Regardless Guelph has serious issues with nitrates and trichloroethylene in some wells. The interesting thing is the willingness of all supposedly responsible parties to keep this water in the supply system. Also interesting is how they do it.

"The Carter Wells (east side of Guelph) contain Nitrates at concentrations that frequently exceed the ODWQS of 10 mg/lfor Nitrate.". "The water from the wells is blended with water from the Arkell Spring Grounds to reduce the Nitrate concentrations to below the ODWQS.". Therefore unsafe raw water is O.K. provided you dilute it first according to those folks.

"The water quality for the Emma Well (N-W Guelph) has shown an increasing trend for TCE (trichloroethylene) since 1997." Recent water quality has been as high as 3.4 ug/l for TCE.'. The drinking water standard for TCE is 5 ug/l. TCE is highly toxic with multiple health issues.

The Membro Well is in the south-central area of Guelph. "Since 2002, the City has taken steps to slow the increasing TCE concentration trend in the well. In 2004, the City installed a liner in the well to limit the production from the well to depths of about 40 m below surface." Also "...the City has slowed the increasing trend by reducing the pumping rate of the well." Don't these operational fixes just give you a warm, fuzzy feeling about your drinking water?

The Smallfield Well is at the extreme western edge of Guelph. It was removed from service in 1994 due to TCE concentrations as high as 45 ug/l. However at the time that was O.K. because the drinking water standard was then 50 ug/l versus the current 5 ug/l. "In 2008, the City initiated a project to return the Smallfield Well to service." "The well was pumped (in conjunction with the (nearby) Sacco Well) for a period of 13 days..". Despite this attempt to dilute this toxic chemical they still had readings of 20 ug/l. Also they were aware of nearby groundwater readings of TCE as high as 50,000 ug/l. Therefore at this time this well is not being brought back into service. My question is with this well shut down since 1994 didn't anybody have the bright idea of remediating the source? Rather than letting it slowly dissolve and move downgradient why didn't the City or the M.O.E do a cleanup? Unbelievable!

So once again we see our municipal and provincial authorities more than willing to lie to us and give us poisoned drinking water. Nice of them to tell us that it is becoming routine to "manage" toxic water. This "management" can consist of dilution/blending, reduced pumping, steel liners in wells and whatever other bandaids they come up with. This folks is why over 40% of Canadians are experiencing cancers and other health issues.

Saturday, August 23, 2014


The above title is the exact title of a Study done by the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund back in May 2001. This on-line study was found and distributed by one of the current Chemtura Public Advisory Committee members, namely Graham Chevreau. This study details the budget of the Ministry of the Environment (M.O.E.) from the late 1980's through till 2000. It also breaks it down showing how much went to reserach for example versus to Legal Services and or overall Enforcement. Finally the number of charges laid per year, the number of convictions and the dollar value of fines are all enumerated.

It is not a pretty picture and indeed the title says it all. Enforcement has ebbed and flowed in direct relation to the budget available to the M.O.E. to do the job. From a total budget of $664 million in 1992/93 to a low of $172 million in 2000/01 the lack of enforcement since the flurry in the early 90's is obvious. What is less obvious and behind the scenes is the required lobbying by business and industry needed to "achieve" this disaster. The 90's were supposed to be the turnaround decade and they started reasonably well. I now better understand how corruption in this country works. Instead of direct bribes to M.O.E. officials you simply do the exact opposite. You stop donating to political parties until they get the message. If they hold back money to the M.O.E. their party will benefit. Otherwise their political opponents will. What a perverse and disgusting system. It never fails to amaze me at how diligent the wealthy and powerfrul are at manipulating the levers of democracy in their own favour.

The irony is the stupidity of these wealthy and powerful people. Yes they and their friends and family make more money at the expense of the environment. Yes to a certain extent they can buy health and live in less polluted neighbourhoods. But only to a certain extent. They breath the same air and drink the same water and eat the same food. They are not immune to the health effects of a deteriorated environment. And they and their families will die all the sooner due to their "success" at lessening environmental enforcement by making the Ontario M.O.E. impotent.

It is class warfare but their aren't just winners and losers. There are losers and losers and our current system is broken.

Friday, August 22, 2014


I've posted here about the totally unacceptable and deceptive responses to three pages of technical questions which I sent to the Region of Waterloo via Woolwich Councillor Mark Bauman. I'll never do that again ie. send anything through that shyster Mark Bauman. He's got a real head problem; in other words it's gotten way too big for him and for the voters. He unecessarily wasted two months time before releasing the answers to me. Then I and all of CPAC/SWAT find out he had information regarding the flow of probably contaminated water into the Martin pond downgradient of Chemtura. Although it was my information directly to Mark that got him on that site, the jerk learned of a by-pass to fill the Martin pond with this probably contaminated water and did not tell CPAC/SWAT for six weeks.

Back to West Montrose water. I now have a report dated 2010 that says that the only well operating in West Montrose is WM4 the newest of the four wells. What the hell? The report is the Grand River Source Protection Area First Draft Assessment Report dated August 12,2010 page 3-9. Meanwhile throughout the Environmental Assessment and other reports we are constantly being told about iron contamination clogging pumps and screens. Therefore in my 3 pages of questions I specifically asked the question as to why they couldn't be cleaned. The response the Region gave me was that they "...are routinely cleaned and rehabillitated one to two times per year.". Really? Even though they aren't being used? Somebody is blowing big time smoke here folks.

The next point deals with "iron' contamination. Would the Region care to be a little more accurate here? Do they really mean iron bacteria which are the result of iron in the water and which are the cause of slime, discolouration and clogging of pumps.

Finally I've been doing more reading on Bedrock Aquifer quality in the Grand River valley. As already posted our neighbours north, south, east and west of West Montrose use Bedrock Aquifer water quite sucessfully whether small communities or larger such as Guelph and Cambridge. The Guelph Formation (central), Salina (west) and Amabel (Gasport) to the east all provide good quality and quantity of drinking water.

I wonder when or if the Region of Waterloo will get off their secrecy and deception kick. This is why citizens don't trust them on numerous other issues such as LRT. They quite simply lie to the citizens paying the freight.

Thursday, August 21, 2014


Last Saturday's Waterloo Region Record carried this story "His high-octane biogas message". A University of Guelph post grad student is studying whether an invasive plant known as phragmites can be used as a feedstock for biogas production. Phragmites is an extremely tall plant which spreads rapidly and tends to takeover wetland areas. It is being removed where possible as it tends to reduce bio-diversity because of its' thick roots and shoots. Student Kurtis Baute is trying to determine if it could be harvested and used to help produce biogas which runs engines to generate electricity. Here in Elmira, Woolwich Bio-En are still trying to increase their raw feedstocks hence perhaps down the road this research could be beneficial to them.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014


Yesterday I posted about how disappointing the off-site pumping has been overall but especially June and July this year. As usual Chemtura/CRA have excuses/reasons galore but the bottom line is that their computer modelling used to state that both wells W3 and W4 needed to pump at 11.4 litres/second in order to allegedly achieve drinking water standards in the Elmira Aquifers by 2028. Since then they've significantly reduced their Target Rates and W3 is still at 11.4 but only achieved 5.7 last month and W3 is now at 3.5 and only achieved 3.1l/s. Pretty pathetic.

We are advised on page 6 of this report again that sometime this summer they will be excavating three 100 metre square areas (10x10)in GP1 and 2. This is based upon "analytical" data allegedly. Of course we the public have no idea which particular analytical data they might be referring to or even which of the two former gravel pits. Also we don't know how "deep" they are "excavating". Last summer it was all of one foot, twelve inches or 1/3 of a metre. Maybe this year they will "excavate" three or four inches. Anything to cheaply claim that they are responsive to CPAC and the public.

Table A.4 shows us why n-nitrosomorpholine (NMOR) is constantly above the Effluent Objectives when discharged to the creek after treatment. The raw groundwater is polluted at 1400 parts per billion (ppb) at pumping well PW4.

Again at least for the second time recently we have BEHP (bis ethylhexyl phthalate) showing up at the upstream end of the Canagagigue Creek prior to its' flowing through the site. Somebody currently or else past sins (eg. Bolender landfill) are showing up as a further reminder that everything you dump into the earth will move and spread.

Table D.1 is titled On-Site Routine Groundwater Monitoring. Once again we are treated with analytical results stating that DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and its' metabolytes (DDD, DDE) are present in groundwater on site. This of course is very disturbing when we recall how many times CRA/Chemtura have advised us that DDT, like Dioxins, are hydrophobic and do not dissolve in groundwater. Chemtura and their partners in pollution love to play with words and twist meanings when they make outlandish claims. Meanwhile groundwater analysis shows both DDT (& metabolytes) and Dioxins are in groundwater. Whether they are "dissolved", in solution, partitioned , in suspension or whatever term you want, they are there and they can move with the groundwater. This decades long adherence to disproven theories and facts are one of Chemtura's most endearing qualities. Oops or did I mean enduring?

Tuesday, August 19, 2014


In November 2012 as a direct result of CPAC's Resolution in the spring, which was later endorsed by Woolwich Township, Chemtura and CRA announced new cleanup plans for the Elmira Aquifers. They included a tripling of the volume of off-site groundwater pumping and treating as well as some source removal via In Situ Chemical Oxidation. Work has been done allegedly towards this goal however promises from CRA/Chemtura have in the past proven to be elusive in reality. It's heading towards two years since their promises were made and to date both proposed and appropriate ISCO locations allegedly have been unsucessful. As far as the off-site pumping goes I wonder when they talk about tripling it whether they are talking about tripling their original computer generated Target pumping rate or their continually being reduced Target rates?

The original target Rates for the five off-site wells was based upon the following pumping rates in litres per second ie. l/s . E7 - 26.5 , W3 - 11.4 , W4 - 11.4 , W5A - 7.6 , W5B - 7.6 . These pumping rates (total 64.5 l/s) were determined allegedly by a computer program based upon pumping these wells for thirty years ie. from August 1998 until August 2028. The fact that they rarely met these pumping rates for many years only added to the lack of confidence in them and in CRA/Chemtura. In response did they increase their capacity? Hell no they took a page from the M.O.E. and reduced their target pumping rates to 53.5 l/sec a few years back. About fourteen months ago they reduced it again when they stopped pumping the Municipal Upper Aquifer at W4. This well had a wellscreen in both the Upper and Lower Municipal Aquifer and CRA/Chemtura decided that the Lower aquifer required more attention than the Upper. Their current Target Rates for the five wells are now 45.6 l/sec. So this begs the question: Are they allegedly tripling their pumping rates from their original computer generated requirements of 64.5 l/s or from their current 45.6 l/s?

Whatever they intend to do the fact is that there is a huge, years long deficit in pumping based upon their own numbers. Last month (July) they achieved their greatly reduced Target pumping rate. The previous month (June) they did not. Prior to that their off-site pumping had been reasonably consistent for a little over a year achieving even their 53.1 former Target rate via greatly increased pumping at W3. Quite frankly their off-site pumping has been up and down like a toilet seat. I'm not exactly holding my breathe in anticipation of a tripling of their off-site pumping. Their talk is even cheaper than most.

Monday, August 18, 2014


E.Coli bacteria killed seven people and made a couple of thousand more sick in Walkerton, Ontario in 2000. Some of those sick have permanent organ damage due to E.Coli. Justice O'Connor led the Inquiry and made many worthwhile recommendations. Failures abounded both human , institutional and systemic. From alcoholism, laziness, apathy, stupidity to a lack of common sense and from individual weaknesses to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment; the gaps in human health protection were glaring. Justice O'Connor's written reports however were more than just new rules, regulations and recommendations thereof. His reports also encompassed a new way of thinking about drinking water protection. They demanded a multi barrier approach from water in the ground to the final water coming from our taps. In other words while there were new rules there was also supposed to be a new spirit and attitude around water protection. Human beings unfortunately and especially those in positions of power and authority can always find ways around rules. Annual Reports detailing our water quality were to be made available to consumers of water in every jurisdiction in Ontario. Here is the result.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment through both the Safe Drinking Water Act and Ontario Reg.170/03 have mandated these Annual (Drinking Water) Reports. These reports have loopholes and omissions in them large enough to drive a water truck through. This is by design and by intention. Municipalities who have long ignored flagrant pollution violations in their communities yelled loudly and clearly. These Annual Reports could expose their incompetence and negligence if the M.O.E. insisted that everything relevant to the quality of drinking water was included. Hence ubiquitous industrial contaminants from leaking gasoline stations were conveniently ignored. Many toxic by-products of disinfection processes were left out of the reporting. NDMA which shut down the drinking wells in Elmira isn't even required to be reported in other highly industrialized towns and cities. Adverse incidents and results during water treatment allegedly are reported. It turns out that some of them show up as Adverse Incidents in water towers and other distribution facilities. Others in smaller systems going directly to consumers do not. These omissions are both unconscionable and intentional.

Locally we have the Region of Waterloo responsible for water production and treatment. They have exploited unmercifully every loophole and opportunity either in the legislation or which they can lobby the M.O.E. to agree to, regarding not being open and transparent. Shut down wells allegedly must be reported. Wells "on standby"; that's a different story. Other contaminated wells simply have their production cut back allowing for dilution with cleaner wells. The Region hide behind the M.O.E. at every opportunity. When asked a straightforward technical question about their water; instead of responding directly they say that Ontario Regulation 170 doesn't require it. Again when asked why they can't include pertinent information in their Annual Reports they say that the Safe Drinking Water Act doesn't require it. They make no attempt to justify their decision, they simply hide behind both the M.O.E. and the provincial legislation. Furthermore they fill their Annual Reports with acronyms and shortforms making them impossible to understand by the average citizen.

These Annual Reports are a failure. That is not Justice O'Connor's fault. It is the fault of the province of Ontario and the lower tier governments intentionally misapplying and manipulating the flawed rules and regulations.

Saturday, August 16, 2014


It sure looks that way to me. There was a five minute investigation of overburden (sand & gravel above the bedrock) wells and a further five minute investigation of a currently existing bedrock well right beside the Treatment Building on Tallwood Drive in West Montrose. Both these local water supply options were summarily dismissed allegedly due to a discontinuous Overburden Aquifer and allegedly due to treatment requirements for the Bedrock well.

Bedrock wells often require treatment to remove sulphates and other naturally occurring compounds that dissolve into their groundwater. This is routine and to be expected. Following is a list of nearby communities who draw their drinking water from bedrock aquifers: Cambridge draw the majority of their drinking water from bedrock aquifers. Dundalk, Grand Valley, Marsville, Drayton, Moorefield, Fergus, Elora, Rockwood, Guelph, Linwood, New Hamburg, Milverton and Paris. These towns and cities are located north, south, east and west of West Montrose. They apparently on a daily basis sucessfully treat bedrock aquifer water. Apparently the Region of Waterloo have no institutional memory. They can treat bedrock aquifer in one location but forget how in others. Clearly they have their own source water predetermined and are simply going through the motions here.

Friday, August 15, 2014


It's an embarassment and a lever back into the M.O.E./Uniroyal "Sweetheart Deal" of October 7, 1991 aka "Settlement Agreement". CRA/Chemtura and the M.O.E. generally want the DNAPL file closed. I will say this for the Ontario M.O.E.; recently twice they have clearly stated that the DNAPL file is NOT closed. Steve Martindale (M.O.E.) has agreed that as per the Ministry's formerly written Monthly Reports, the DNAPL issues have not been resolved as yet to the Ministry's satisfaction. Also Jaimie Connelly (M.O.E.) at the last CPAC meeting in June stated that he would still like to see some source reduction/removal of DNAPLS on the Chemtura site. Total reliance on hydraulic containment forever does not satisfy the Walkerton "multiple barrier' approach.

I posted here in the Advocate back on July 7/14 regarding these DNAPL issues. I also quoted a Feb.6/09 Elmira Independent story on the January 19, 2009 CPAC public meeting in which both Pat Mclean and Susan Bryant insisted that there was not concensus with Chemtura on the DNAPL issues.

Finally based upon the latest received six year old technical committee meeting Minutes of the last two DNAPL meetings of June 13 and October 28/2008; it is obvious that there was not "concensus" as Jeff Merriman keeps falsely claiming. Not only did Wilf Ruland and Jaimie Connelly stick to their guns on source removal/reduction but even Steve Quigly of CRA spoke the truth on the first page of the June 13/08 Minutes when he said there is a "fundamental difference in approach...". Jaimie and Wilf had just again stated their position regarding source removal when Steve replied in disagreement. Please let me spell this out for the blinkered Chemtura employees : Concenus On DNAPL Has Never Been Achieved no matter how many times you say it has.

Thursday, August 14, 2014


Last Monday's Waterloo Region Record carried this story "Five protesters arrested at Line 9 construction site". Five protesters were arrested and jailed and taken to the Brant County jail in Paris. The charges against four of them are mischief and disobeying a court order. The fifth protester also faces two counts of breaching probation. Interesting but the only charge that could remotely be construed as "antisocial" is the mischief charge. The other charges are basically due to the judiciary feeling disrespected. I expect that thiose charges and penalties will exceed the mischief charges.

This pipeline plan by Enbridge is risky and ill thought out. The direction of flow is being reversed and the product being transported is thicker and more corrosive. The pressure inside the pipe will be greater and lets face it Enbridge and others do not remotely have pristine environmental records. The fact that to date our authorities are unwilling to provide a transparent, open and honest environmental assessment is nothing new. Our newly named MOECC are inherently corrupt from the top down and protect powerful polluters rather than citizens and the environment. My hat goes off to these protesters.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014


Last evening at 7 pm. in the Elmira library, the Woolwich Bio-En Citizens Liason Committee (CLC) took place. It may have set a record for duration which actually is a good thing. It was over within twenty minutes as Chair Earl Brubacher updated the committee on their current operating status. Feedstocks are coming in on a daily basis and power is being sucessfully generated and added to the grid. There have been no new complaints regarding either noise or odours and in fact the only two attributable complaints dealt with noise from a fan and a minor change has reduced that problem. Their neighbour, the pet food plant, is experiencing odour problems but to date the community seem aware that it is not Bio-En.

Earl suggested that they were running at about 25-30% capacity and that was strictly due to the incoming quantities of feedstocks. It will take time for local generators of these food feedstocks to understand exactly how flexible and able Bio-En are to accomodate different varieties. For example they can and have handled everything from hotdogs in packages to dry soup mix and canned goods. They have a machine which removes the packaging allowing the contents to go into the digester. The excess gas to be used for vehicle fuel plans are still a couple of years away. I had asked a question about power failures and apparently their backup generater will provide power for their flare and bio filters. Hence they could operate on a reduced basis if necessary for a short while.

The next meeting will be at the library, 7 pm. on Tuesday October 7, 2014.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014


Talk about liars and talk about slamming the gate after the horse has bolted. Yesterday I posted about the Bait & Switch deal being pulled by the Region of Waterloo, on West Montrose residents. They were told that their system primarily had quantity problems and if pushed they would mention iron and manganese treatment issues. Zero comment about them having the highest detections of Total Coliforms and E.Coli throughout Waterloo Region in their raw water. Then they were told that Conestogo has ample quantity of high quality drinking water available if they the West Montrose residents would agree to a pipeline over to Conestogo. The latest story is that we the Region are expanding our options list to now include a hookup to the Regional IUS (Integrated Urban System) as well.

I surmised correctly that the source of fecal bacteria to the West Montrose wells was the approximately fifty or more upgradient septic tanks and tile beds. That would be upgradient and in the same aquifer by the way. On-line is a report called the Grand River Source Protection Area Approved Assessment Report. Page 9-488 and Map 9-294 is titled West Montrose Well Supply Wellhead Protection Area. Page 9-491 and Map 9-297 is titled West Montrose Well Supply Transport Pathways. The second map shows that water in the four West Montrose wells (WM1, WM2, WM3, WM4) draws from shallow groundwater running directly under the septic sysytems of the entire subdivision. The originator of this water supply system was a developer. The Region of Waterloo took over in 1994 and have struggled ever since trying to avoid a repeat of the Walkerton disaster by chlorinating the daylights out of this polluted water whether directly from the septic systems or as they prefer to claim from the nearby Grand River.

The Conestogo Plains water system I have recently learned also have problems with fecal bacteria and total Coliforms. This surprised me at first as I expected problems from the Golf Course water system. It like the West Montrose system has at least one of its' wells being influenced by the Grand River. It is conceivable however that the one well is both deeper and farther away from the river than the four West Montrose wells. The same report as above on page 9-358, Map 9-198 is titled Conestogo Well Supply Transport Pathways. It tells the tale as to why well C-4 has had bacterial problems. Both it and well C-3 are drawing water from below the Conestoga Plains subdivision's septic systems. I would estimate that the map shows more like 60-70 septic systems discharging into the ground. There is good reason why well C-4 has had less dramatic detections of bacteria than the West Montrose wells. Firstly it and C-3 are deeper and there may be a more or less continuous aquitard slowing contaminant migration between the two aquifers. Secondly well C-4 has been on standby while well C-3 does the lion's share of water production for the community.

The bottom line is that one community (Conestogo) are at risk and the other (West Montrose) have been long at risk due to bacteria and the toxic by-products of heavy disinfection for decades. Only now are the Region and the Province (M.O.E.) doing something appropriate about it and they are both lying like dogs to hide their negligence and culpability.

Monday, August 11, 2014


I have a number of concerns with the process around the class environmental assessment for a new water supply for West Montrose. The basic need for a new water supply is not one of them. Conversely the need for a new supply for Conestogo has not been shown to date. Here is where I find the process very weird. The West Montrose EA at one point had nine different options from Do Nothing to new deep overburden wells, bedrock wells and outside sources of water from Elmira or Conestogo. We were assurred that the eventually preferred option of a pipeline from Conestogo was viable in terms of water quantity and quality. If that is the case then why the bait and switch? Why after the pipeline to Conestogo is chosen based upon using two local groundwater wells, has an environmental assessment for Constogo's water suddenly been deemed necessary? Why was the possibility of hooking into the Region's IUS (integrated urban system) through Conestogo not on the table for West Montrose residents initially? They were advised that they could hook up to the IUS through Elmira but if they went to Conestogo it would be to hook up to their current in town Conestogo Plains two wells.

Saturday, August 9, 2014


Oh my, oh my was past CPAC Chair Pat McLean completely out of her mind? I knew that she and former CPAC member Susan Bryant had been negotiating private deals, allegedly on CPAC's behalf, with the Ministry of the Environment. I caught them doing so in the fall of 2007 regarding the Ammonia Treatment Certificate of Approval discussions. That issue at least had come to CPAC's attention via the front door. This latest twist, to the best of my knowledge, was handled outside the proper and formal CPAC venue. Despite that, the written documentation just handed out by Chemtura has Pat Mclean's signature on a document that states "This memorandum of Understanding is based on telephone discussions between Chemtura, the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 0n December 18, 2007.".

I am appalled. Firstly the CPAC Terms of Reference do not and never have permitted the Chair to take action or make decisions outside the formal CPAC process. One vote per member and indeed originally the Chair didn't even have a vote. I was still a voting CPAC member in December 2007 (until April 2008) and this issue was not discussed or debated at CPAC. Next both Chemtura and the M.O.E. as members of CPAC (non voting) had copies of CPAC's Terms of Reference. They knew that both Pat McLean and CPAC had absolutely zero authority to enter into written agreements with Chemtura. CPAC ironically due to the promotion of Pat McLean had been a formal Committee of Woolwich Township since 2000. I was one of the lonely voices who spoke against it at the time.

So the question is did Pat do this with at least the tacit approval of then Mayor Bill Strauss? Pat had been kept on CPAC as Chair even after she lost her Council seat to Sandy Shantz. Pat and the Mayor were supportive colleagues and she was given the continued role of CPAC Chair as a consolation prize when it should have gone to Sandy Shantz. Also it begs the question did the rest of Woolwich Council know that their committee of council (CPAC) was making written agreements with a private company (Chemtura)?

So did Pat go completely rogue here? I have some information years ago courtesy of Susan Bryant in which she described Pat as a "control freak". My personal knowledge would not so describe Pat. Bluntly put she abuses authority on a regular basis. Whatever authority she is given by whomever she will twist, strain and push that authority way beyond its' limits.

Finally I need to ask what the hell are Chemtura doing in exposing this? They (& the M.O.E.) are tainted by this behaviour as well. Whether the Township were doing arms length deals knowingly with Chemtura via the CPAC Chair or whether she was going behind both CPAC's back and the Township's; this Memorandum of Understanding has no authority or validity. Chemtura included this MOU in a Conestoga Rovers Report dated Febuary 2010 that they just handed out to the current CPAC this week. The title of the CRA Report is "Emissions Validation Study : Determination of Emission rates for ...From Building 37 Process Vents".

Friday, August 8, 2014


This time it's in British Columbia as a tailings pond breached its' walls and discharged 4.5 million cubic metres of toxic silt into Polley Lake and Quesnel Lake. According to today's Woolwich Observer Editorial titled "Inevitable spills of mining toxins demand oversight"; both the company and the B.C. Environment Ministry had been warned for years about the risk of such a breach. The B.C. Environment Ministry of course are now all over the issue, after the fact. According to yesterday's Waterloo Region Record's article titled "B.C. mine boss apologizes for spill"; the Ministry are issuing Orders such as stopping discharges, making cleanup plans and they must undergo an environmental assessment. Nice to see that Environment Ministrys are the same everywhere isn't it? They ignore hazards that they have the legislative power to mitigate and then after the fact it's a blizzard of paperwork as if that will heal the earth and the water.

Thursday, August 7, 2014


Let's continue to hold off on that originally proposed 2035 pipeline to Lake Erie. Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record carried this story "Water ban over, Toledo drinks from tap again". Apparently the recurring joys of algal blooms have hit Lake Erie once more. This particular time the bloom was closer to our U.S. neighbours as Toledo, Ohio found it necessary to close their water intake pipe from Lake Erie. Algal blooms are a companion to warm weather plus agricultural nutrients in the water. These nutrients could include nitrogen and phosphorous among others. The algal blooms end up using oxygen from the water as well as producing a bacteria known as microsystin which is a health hazard. I believe our local PHd. biologist Dr. Henry Regier has commented in the past on various causes and exacerbating conditions leading to these issues in Lake Erie.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014


This Hydrogeological Investigation is part of the Class Environmental Assessment for West Montrose and is done by Golder Associates, dated June 27, 2012. Allegedly it was done to determine if there were viable sources of groundwater near West Montrose that could be used as an alternate source to their current four river infiltration wells. A map is provided indicating the numbers of nearby wells both inside and outside West Montrose which are providing drinking water to various farms and homes. These wells are both deep overburden wells as well as bedrock wells. Personally I find the logic sorely lacking when it comes to dismissing groundwater in and around West Montrose as not being viable. Yes bedrock wells routinely have higher sulphate levels which require treatment. On the other hand they don't have bacteria such as E.Coli and Total Coliforms which are far more serious and hence require serious treatment. Golder's claim that the deep overburden aquifer may not be continuous in the area. Well my knowledge is that groundwater flows, albeit slowly. It has recharge areas and discharge areas. The real question is whether there is enough high quality water for West Montrose. Keep in mind there's only a couple of hundred people in the village. We don't need volumes capable of supplying Kitchener or Waterloo here. As far as quality goes West Montrose has been plagued with low quality, dangerously bacteria contaminated water for decades.

I was astounded to learn that there is already a drilled bedrock well in West Montrose beside the current treatment plant. Under testing it provided volumes of water far in excess of any requirements the village would ever need. It had the normal bedrock quality requiring treatment to make it taste better. Why not ask all the nearby users of bedrock wells how they feel about their water? This bedrock well actually is artesian and will flow from the ground on its' own without pumping. Claims that the wastewater from treatment will require trucking to the Waterloo Sewage Treatment Plant seem very odd to me. Here in Woolwich we have overflowing artesian wells by the Woolwich Dam and Floradale which simply discharge onto the ground, hence recharging the shallow aquifers and the lake. What's the big deal with trucking the water away? Compared to the crap routinely discharged into the Grand River from both industries and sewage treatment plants this seems innocuous.

All in all I'm seeing a strong bias not to let West Montrose have their own, new water supply. Using a pipeline makes treatment and oversight simpler for the Region. It's ironic that now the Region seem willing to spend more money on a pipeline than using local groundwater yet for twenty years they delayed getting a new desperately needed water source into the village.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014


Chloramines, Trihalomethanes and Turbidity have somewhat been my focus of water issues in West Montrose. That being said, the first two I felt were as a direct consequence of very high bacteria levels in the raw water. The raw water is classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water ie. GUDI. The Region in their responses to my three pages of questions attempted to put all the blame for E.Coli and Total Coliforms on the Grand River running beside the wells. Chloramine levels are a direct consequence of ammonia intentionally added to the water for secondary disinfection as it produces chloramines. The downside is that this very same ammonia can promote the growth of other bacteria in the system as well as Nitrites and Nitrates all of which are not good. The trihalomethanes are a competing chemical reaction produced by adding chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) to the water. This chlorine also produces hypochlorous acid which is the source of free chlorine which kills bacteria and more.

The Region of Waterloo falsely and inaccurately denied that chloramines, Trihalomethanes and Turbidity were problems in West Montrose drinking water. To date the 2013 Class Environmental Assessment by AECOM has made liars out of them regarding Trihalomethanes (THM) and turbidity. The chloramines haven't been discussed yet in my reading of the Class EA but I'm still expecting them to be. Apparently the addition of chlorine by way of sodium hypochlorite is also used for oxidizing iron and manganese in the water. I had felt that the Region must have been overchlorinating the raw water in order to produce so much THM but it now appears that while large amounts of chlorine are involved they are being used for both bacterial disinfection as well as oxidation of dissolved iron and manganese. Regardless it is this very large chlorine demand in the raw water that requires so much to be added. This would also explain the very high CT (contact time) of 51.4 mg/l*minute. This was another one of my questions that the Region refused to answer directly, clearly or properly.

The Annual Reports produced by the Region via a template provided by the Ministry of Environment are also being exposed as grossly inadequate. We are advised on page 46 in the EA that "flooding produces high turbidity causing wells to be shut down multiple times per year.". These multiple shutdowns per year of West Montrose wells are not being reported to the public. Finally we are advised on page 67 that well C4 in Conestoga has had bacterial problems in the past. Really? Again at first blush that is nowhere to be seen in the Annual Reports if read but once a year when they come out. However I reread the last seven years and found something that is disturbing. The 2012 Annual Report indicates well C4 was shut down for four weeks. No reason was given. Then the 2008 Annual Report indicates that well C4 was shut down for eight weeks. Again no reason was given. Finally I stopped looking after I read in the 2007 Annual Report that well C4 was shut down for the entire year. What the hell! Again no reason was given. Well I guess the reason is due to (severe?) bacterial contamination as indicated in the Class EA. Thank you Region of Waterloo and Ontario M.O.E. for your honesty and transparency. By the way are we still keen on a pipeline from Conestogo from well C3 and C4 over to West Montrose?

Monday, August 4, 2014


I've been continuing my research and reading into issues around drinking water treatment. This has included getting into the 227 page "West Montrose Water Supply Class Environmental Assessment: Project File Report" written by AECOM on January 2013. This is the report that the Region referred to in a number of their non answers to my questions. While I am not finished the report yet I can categorically say how disappointing it is. It is disappointing not for its' quality, coherence or logic but disappointing as it makes very clear how pathetic, deceptive and intentionally misleading the Region's responses to my 36 questions were.

My second question dealt with a newspaper article in the Waterloo Region Record describing the need to look at options other than a pipeline bringing Conestogo water over to West Montrose. My question clearly indicated my mistaken belief that the pipeline wasn't a done deal. Instead of clarifying and telling me that the pipeline was chosen, the Region gave me a pat answer about the objectives of the Environmental Assessment; leaving me with the understanding that the pipeline wasn't going through.

The Region numbered my questions and hence their number five asked whether the incoming water tankers to West Montrose were to improve water quality, quantity or both. Their answer was categorically " provide a sufficient quantity of water to the community.". AECOM's Env. Assess. Report says otherwise. From their Executive Summary to pages 11, 13, 26 and 31 there are ongoing concerns about inorganic parameters exceeding standards as well as references to "high levels of treatment the wells require", "accidental consumption of unsafe water", references to Trihalomethanes being related to high Dissolved Organic carbon (DOC) and wells being shut down due to high Turbidity (cloudiness).

Speaking of Turbidity the Region have really outdone themselves. Their question numbers 20 and 23 are my asking both about treatment problems due to turbidity as well as whether the Ministry of Environment have given them permission to relax Turbidity standards. Without answering my questions they ignore the whole major issue of Turbidity claimimg it meets all standards. This is firstly false and secondly AECOM advise on page 28 that the four West Montrose wells are required to be shut down when the Grand River rises (spring & heavy rains) due to Turbidity issues.

The inorganic parameters present are related to health issues as they impact the water treatment efficacy. Raw water with high Turbidity, high DOC, hardness, total dissolved solids (TDS) etc. makes it easier for bacteria and pathogens to slip through the treatment system. They also increase costs of treatment and as such are a major quality issue. The Region in their answers to me focused on river water as being the sole source of high E.Coli and Total Coliforms. With long term multiple septic systems nearby this seems highly unlikely but to date AECOM have not commented.

Councillor Mark Bauman made me wait four months for these pieces of shit responses from the Region of Waterloo. The M.O.E. backed the Region by claiming that somehow the Region's chloramine test results were no longer necessary or required. That is contrary to all literature describing chloramination of drinking water. Those test results are vital which is why they are part of the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS). Legal regulations don't seem to faze either the Region or the M.O.E.. In their answer to question 36 the Region advises that shut down and off-line wells must be reported in the Annual Reports. AECOM advised (pg. 28) that the West Montrose wells are shut down when there are elevated water levels in the Grand River. How strange but not a single shut down is mentioned in the Annual reports for West Montrose over the last decade due to elevated levels in the Grand River. Ombudsman look out! This Region and provincial Ministry are operating unsafely and contrary to law.

Saturday, August 2, 2014


Again I have spent several hours today surfing the net finding articles, research papers and briefs describing the joys of chlorination, chloramination, breakpoint chlorination, filtration and assorted water treatment. I am mentally tired and ready for a nap. I'm also trying hard to understand the mindset of our municipal councillors past and present. They get paid peanuts with the exception of the Mayor (due to extra Boards, Regional Council etc.). At this point in time and after they've spent a week working, plus their council duties on top, all they want are some black and white straightforward decisions. It's the same thing with lay people on environmental committees such as CPAC. Doing and deciding the right thing really shouldn't be so difficult. This is the weakness of the whole system. Vested interests with full time trained professionals have it all sewn up. Clearly the consultants to the multi convicted polluter Uniroyal/Chemtura have a field day in manipulating subjective situations and facts made malleable by site-specific circumstances. By the time the smoke clears they can make most lay people believe that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

What about our regional and provincial governments? Are they also vested interests whose agenda is to fool the people? The answer is yes in many areas and issues. The provincial government accept "donations" whether during election campaigns or in between. These "donations" however come with strings attached. They are strings/favours specific to the giver of the money. Regional governments are perhaps a little different. For example they are providing water to a constantly growing population crowded together. Our treated sewage gets dumped into the Grand River. Then we remove Grand River water and treat it further to get drinking water. Our polluting industries throughout Waterloo Region have used the ground as a toxic dumpsite for the last century. Our Region pretends otherwise and uses contaminated groundwater for drinking water. Then they lie about the whole process.

Back to our municipal councils. They are lay people and in some cases not particularily smart lay people. It's less work and far easier to not look deeply into issues. Leave that for staff and or consultants. When possible let other levels of government do your work for you. Hence we are right back in a circle. The Region and province (M.O.E.) tell you that the water is good so why would you go looking hard elsewhere for someone with a contrary opinion who are going to make you work harder? Especially if the contrary opinion is bringing bad news, many municipal councillors will bail out. Fast. Too many other time consuming issues out there with maybe a positive political spin to them. There is no positive political spin to bad water.

Friday, August 1, 2014


Everytime I think of the smell of dogfood I think of Diacetyl at Chemtura. Diacetyl is an artificial butter flavouring and folks in Elmira used to smile when they smelled that. In comparison to solvents and worse coming from Uniroyal or Chemtura; that seemed both pleasant and harmless. Turns out it was toxic, causing "popcorn lung" both among heavy users and employees, particularily in the U.S.. Who'd have known? Well obviously the company should have known and probably did know.

Today's Woolwich Observer has a Letter to the Editor from Dr. Dan Holt, resident of Elmira and Chair of the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC). Dr. Dan is fed up with both the ongoing odours and secondly with the ongoing do nothing, lack of action coming from the Ontario Ministry of Excuses and Corporate Collusion (MOECC) also known as the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Dr. Dan is right in that the only way to get the MOECC off their butts is by constant and ongoing pressure from the public, the media or both. Otherwise the MOECC simply run interference for the offending polluter. This lack of confidence in the Ministry's willingness to fulfill their mandate probably is a major reason why Elmira citizens were so upset a few years back in regards to the then proposed Woolwich Bio-En. Bio gas is currently being produced by Bio-En and as far as I know they are being good corporate neighbours, unlike the Elmira Pet Food Plant.


Negotiations can only be fruitful whem both parties are holding some decent cards. They can only be fruitful if each party has something to offer the other party that they don't have. Trying to "negotiate" with Uniroyal Chemical or Chemtura Canada is a frustrating waste of time. The corporate polluter only would like the talking to continue. What they secretly fear is either CPAC or Woolwich Township to tell them to f.. off and go to hell. That would be difficult to explain to the media and to the *Responsible Care program run by the Chemical Industry Assoc'n of Canada. It would convey the very accurate reality that the company are a filthy polluter who manipulated a sweetheart deal out of the so called regulatory body (M.O.E.) two decades ago plus. All they currently require is the appearance of public consultation.

A couple of days ago I received a few more six year old documents which I as an incredibly active and informed stakeholder in Elmira for twenty-five years; should have received when they were issued. The blame for that is equally shared between all the other stakeholders including the old CPAC, the M.O.E. and Chemtura. That said once I knew of the existence of these documents, primarily two sets of Minutes out of ten technical DNAPL meetings; it was only a few months wait. There was also a Summary Table which captures reasonably well the positions of Chemtura/CRA versus those of Jaimie Connelly (M.O.E.) and Wilf Ruland, hired by the Township. The words Source Removal or Source Reduction as espoused by Wilf and Jaimie however were not included as they should have been.

These Minutes are for DNAPL Technical meetings held on June 13, 2008 and either October 28 or 29, 2008 dependant on
which paper is accurate. They certainly were not the barnburner exposes presented by Jaimie on May 2/08 or Wilf on May 15/08. That's not surprising as they were produced by Jeff Merriman of Chemtura. Nevertheless there were a couple of surprises involved. Firstly my esteem and respect for Jaimie Connelly has risen again. I'm even willing to admit that while I'm less enthused with Wilf's performance as per the Minutes; even he held up considerably better than I expected. Overall these "negotiations" were CRA & Chemtura versus Wilf and Jaimie. That would be for CRA: Mark Hilverda, Alan Deal and Steve Quigley . For Chemtura it was : Jeff Merriman & Dwight Este. Therefore it was essentially five full time professionals versus two.

There were three amateurs present and quite frankly only one even had a clue what was going on. Pat Mclean and Sandy Shantz were so far over their heads it should have been embarassing except yet again token public participation is required. The one with a clue (and more) was Susan Bryant.

My congratulations to Wilf and Jaimie because despite ongoing bullshit, lying, intransigience and deception stretching over four years; right up to the end they held their ground on several DNAPL issues. This of course is 100% contrary to what Jeff Merriman of Chemtura has repeatedly, publicly told CPAC. I'm not too much of a gentleman not to call Jeff exactly what he is; but that's for another day. Between them Jaimie and Wilf held out to the end on more work and action for the M2 area (SW), the East Central area and Source Removal or Reduction in order to improve on-site groundwater and hence off-site via leakage or other future problems. Also Wilf in particular wanted action taken on the berms between RPW6, 7 & 8. Finally in the October Minutes Wilf was silent on the need for a shallow trench downgradient of the Main tank farm. This he had held steady on for a significant time period so whether his comments weren't recorded in the October Minutes, I do not know. Certainly there is no "concensus" indicated in the Minutes.

One final point is necessary here. These "negotiations" were no more than a public relations gesture from the start. The Ontario Ministry of Excuses and Corporate Collusion (MOECC) asked Chemtura to do an overall review of the DNAPL issue. They, Woolwich Township, Chemtura, Susan Bryant, CRA and Pat McLean all knew this was a sham from the start. The secret (from the public) October 7, 1991 Settlement Agreement between Uniroyal and the M.O.E. guaranteed that Uniroyal/Chemtura had no liability for known contamination on their property. This "Indemnity" was as disgusting then as it is now. Probably Sandy Shantz and myself were the only ones who didn't know about that Indemnity. Therefore once again this onerous, four year long DNAPL "investigation" was preordained from the start. Chemtura/CRA personnel simply pretended to be carefully considering all the facts. Not one nickel was ever going to be spent on known contamination at RPW5, 6, 7, 8 and M2 etc..