Friday, September 29, 2017


Susan Bryant was quoted in the Woolwich Observer on March 31, 2001 in Richard Vivian's article. She stated "Odour is really a misnomer for it because it's not so much the nuisance of a bad odour that bothers you, but the knowledge that they're toxic chemicals.". In the March 28, 2001 K-W Record Christian Agaard commented upon Uniroyal's court experience and $168,000 fine for fumigating the Duke St. residents back in August 1998 thusly "It's enough to make you gag.". "It must be a devastating experience.". This was in reference to Uniroyal lawyers and staff having to sully themselves by attending Provincial Offences Court for offences which are non-criminal in nature.

Less than a month after Uniroyal Chemical's $168,000 fine they stunk up Elmira yet again. The April 20, 2001 Elmira Independent story was written as usual by Julie Sawyer and titled "High winds blow off cover, releasing odour". It turned out that the cover over the Building #8 sump was blown off. Susan Bryant and Shannon Purves-Smith responded and took air samples. Shannon was quoted as saying "It was just horrendous.". "I was gagging the smell was so horrible.".

In the June 1, 2001 edition of the Elmira Independent it was first publicly revealed that there was a second polluter of Elmira's drinking water aquifers, namely Nutrite, now known as Yara. They had been contributing mostly Ammonia as well as other lesser contaminants to the aquifers. This had been well hidden by our authorities for the last dozen years. It was my first understanding of the deviousness and dishonesty of our local, regional and provincial authorities.

Further comments in this article were about the odour problems in Elmira. Esther Thur suggested that Uniroyal officials should move to Duke St. in Elmira for the summer. Ron Ormson of CPAC stated that the Ministry of Environment and Uniroyal/Crompton should be doing the off-site air monitoring. Shannon Purves-Smith advised that the free air sampling she was doing " not an endless, endless free process.". Henry Regier and Susan both discussed the proposed Risk Assessment for the Chemtura site. Henry made a metaphor regarding foxes having their tails cut off. Uniroyal presumably being the fox and the consequences of their actions being very minor.

The Woolwich Observer who had first advised UPAC/CPAC and the public that Uniroyal only returned to the public consultation process because the Canadian Chemical Producers Association (CCPA) advised them that they would not get the *Responsible Care verification without it; further advised CPAC and the public of this in their June 2, 2001 edition. Without attending monthly meetings with CPAC their *Responsible Care designation would not be maintained.

Odors were still a problem as the Independent reported in their June 29, 2001 edition that Henry Regier inquired whether the volunteer air cartridges were serving any purpose. Ron Ormson also of CPAC in regards to volunteer air sampling stated that "this came about because there was no long-term ongoing off-site air monitoring.". Shannon suggested that the Uniroyal odours were similar to what she smelled last month in Cuba at a petroleum plant.

Finally in the August 24, 2001 K-W Record, Bob Burtt quoted Sylvia Berg (APTE) "I think they are forward thinking when it comes to relations with their clients, but I don't think they show the same level of concern with the community and the environment.".

These were the days when both APTE and the Environmental Hazards Team (EH-Team- moi, Richard, Esther & Henry) were taking turns shellacking Uniroyal/Crompton for their negligence and ongoing technical, fictional fantasies. I thought we were an excellent team and unfortunately, unknown to us, the APTE leadership were still chafing at not having a monopoly on environmentalism in Elmira, Ontario. Only after Esther passed on and Henry stopped attending CPAC due to hearing difficulties did the APTE leadership take aim at my back.

Thursday, September 28, 2017


This coming Tuesday at 7 pm. I will be bringing my fifth Delegation to Council regarding methane gas risks from the Bolender Park Landfill. More specifically my message has been that the methodology and monitoring of methane gas has been inadequate and in contravention of standard, professional landfill gas management. Each and every Delegation has carefully and specifically focused on different areas and aspects of the problem. I have been successful in raising new and disturbing facts and issues with each Delegation. This Tuesday I will be bringing up yet another different but very important aspect of the consultant's reports done on behalf of Woolwich Township since 1983. The title should be on tomorrow afternoon's on-line Council Agenda and is titled "Scientific literature regarding surface water acting as a barrier to sub-surface methane migration".

Another local, resident coined a phrase years ago that I have never forgotten. It was in reference to Conestoga Rovers' penchant for discovering alleged scientific rationales for some of their more egregious attempts to defend indefensible actions or non-actions by their client, Uniroyal Chemical. Dr. Henry Regier was known to occasionally use the terms "psuedo science" or "junk science". This past colleague and friend I believe coined the expression "adjusting the science according to your needs". It was that obvious even to a person with zero technical, mathematical or science based training past intermediate high school.

Literally for decades I and others have debunked nonsense coming from Uniroyal /Chemtura's consultants. Whether the original destruction of Morrison & Beatty's nuetral scientific impartiality concerning the 1% DNAPL Solubility Rule back in very early 1990s or the Region's consultants suggesting that DNAPL soil samples were taken by CRA in the most unlikely places to actually find DNAPLS; this junk science has been with us for a long time. Other examples include information regarding effective solubilities of DNAPL chemicals versus lab solubilities. In fact that was an issue that was actually avoided if not intentionally covered up by Uniroyal's consultants. Afterall it's easier to say that there is no free phase DNAPL present in an aquifer if you are comparing groundwater concentrations as a percentage of a solubilty say of 400,000 parts per billion rather than the true, effective solubility of chlorobenzene in a mixture of multiple chemicals in groundwater. Therefore if the effective solubility in water is reduced to perhaps 225,000 parts per billion (ppb) then a much reduced concentration of chlorobenzene in groundwater will exceed the standard one percent Solubility Rule.

In the current case it is possible that CRA/GHD actually have some legitimate science behind their claims that surface water prevents sub-surface methane gas migration. Based upon CRA's past history I am doubtful. The proof is in the pudding. Show us what you've got.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017


By 2001 the every week stench coming from Uniroyal/Crompton especially in the summer months was lessening. After three horrible summers residents were beginning to think that there was hope afterall. Uniroyal/Crompton had been slowly upgrading their facilities with more air scrubbers as well as thermal oxidizers for specific processes. It was still too little, years and years too late, but it was at least going in the right direction.

The February 14, 2001 K-W Record reported on the public meeting held by Uniroyal/Crompton regarding their Worst Case Scenario. This meeting about a potential release of Anhydrous Ammonia quickly turned into a debate about their odours. Unfortunately one very uninformed and ignorant Elmira resident whose house was bypassed by the worst of the stench publicly stated "I don't think they are telling the truth". "I don't get the smell." Mr. Robert Bolender while living nearby did not live on Duke St.. Nevertheless his woefully ignorant comment about one of the Duke St. residents flew in the face of all the evidence and testimony of many who did and some who responded to Duke St. during the "fumigations".

In the February 27/2001 Record Bob Burtt wrote about Uniroyal being charged with four counts of violating the Environmental Protection Act in regards to the "pink spill" (Toluene) of a year earlier. These charges come on top of the 20 charges Uniroyal will face in court next month in regards to their above mentioned fumigations of the Duke St. residents.

On March 2/2001 Julie Sawyer of the Elmira Independent reported that Crompton was charged under the EPA and could face fines as high as $1.3 million. They were charged under Section 14(1) causing an adverse effect, Section 92(1) 2 charges for failing to notify the Ministry and the municipality of the spill and Section 93(1) failing to do everything to prevent, eliminate and ameliorate the adverse effect. All of this behaviour by Uniroyal and their successors over decades explains my overall contempt for them, their consultants and even their so called regulator (M.O.E.).

The K-W Record carried an opinion piece by Susan Bryant of the Community Editorial Board that same month. She described well the Region of Waterloo's Groundwater Protection Plans. She also honestly described the lobbying of Regional Councillors by business and developers in opposition to this necessary and common sense proposal to further protect our proven vulnerable groundwater resources throughout the Region. Of course pro business Councillors rolled over and appeased the likes of David Ash (Crompton) and Gord Chaplin (Canadian General Tower-Cambridge).

Both Julie Sawyer and Gail Martin of the Elmira Independent covered the sentencing of Crompton later in March. Crompton were ordered to pay $168,000 for multiple odour emissions in August 1998. Two and half years to get them fined for just a few offences which carried on for years after the charges were laid. The Independent in their March 30, 2001 edition carried Gail Martin's Editorial titled "Is $168,000 enough?". Gail also called for a health study for Elmira. Still hasn't happened. Way too embarrassing for Ken Seiling and all the local business and industry supporters of the status quo.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017


The link to yesterday's article titled "Methane gas sparks fears in Woolwich" is with yesterday's posting. Dan Kennally a senior Woolwich staffer has admitted that the methane gas is still at levels at or above the Lower Explosive Limit and hence could cause an explosion on the west side of the landfill near the wrecking yard. Mr. kennally however is conveniently ignoring other relatively recent high readings both to the north and the east sides of the landfill. His comments about not being worried about the "history" of the monitoring are disingenuous. The most recent readings are from 2015 and 2016 and the ones before that from 2010. These are all recent readings.

Similarly disingenuous is the claim that the Township do not have records of chemical waste. They also don't have records of how many rotten tomatoes or apples you threw out in your garbage fifty years ago. Uniroyal's chemical wastes ie. industrial wastes went into that landfill along with just about every other landfill available to them back in those days.

Yes the Township formally "abandoned" the gas collection system in 2015. It however had not been working for decades before that and their own consultants said so in their reports on the Bolender Park Landfill both in the mid 90's as well as in 2007.

Frank Rattasid stated "It's laughably stupid how badly this was mismanaged over the last 40 years". I'm quoted as stating "It's ridiculous, the lack of concern and the lack of care and the lack of monitoring for methane gas". Meanwhile politicians like Sandy Shantz said that residences near the site face no threat. Frank and I have read the reports. Sandy and her merry band of idiots (Council) have not. You decide who is credible and honest.

Monday, September 25, 2017


I've as usual given them enough rope to hang themselves on. I gently advised them of the facts, the issues and the concerns and instead of actually reading the source material (10 Conestoga Rovers reports) they immediately went into cover up and denial mode. Without thinking, without researching and without asking hard questions. And here we are today with both Sandy Shantz and now a senior Woolwich staffer lying on the front page of the Waterloo Region Record. The title of today's story by Jeff Outhit is "Methane gas sparks fears in Woolwich".

Why do politicians and senior bureaucrats lie? The senior bureaucrats I can both understand and sympathize with. They have large incomes, benefits, job security, status and prestige far in excess of the average Canadian. They have families, mortgages and likely children attending university. I do not believe that they are unionized hence their job security refers to never being laid off. Firing however if they don't follow the explicit direction of the corporation's CAO is something different. Either you're a team player, right or wrong, or you may as well start packing. What they don't fire you for today (ie. telling the truth) they will find an excuse down the road. If you sue for wrongful dismissal you may win but the money won't come out of either the CAO's pocket or the Council personally. The corporation, in this case the Township taxpayers, will foot the bill and the settlement will be kept as quiet as possible.

Why do politicians lie? It's all about serving their interests not the public's interests. Past mistakes, stupidity and downright negligence needs to be covered up at all costs. Afterall there's always an election down the road and incompetence doesn't get you elected. Smiling pretty faces with feel good messages do get you elected. Many politicians, especially at the local, municipal level, are downright lazy. Actually doing their own research and reading isn't what they are about. Leave that for the underlings and if necessary get them to massage the facts more to your self-serving liking.

Lastly there is always the possibility here in Elmira that our Woolwich Council are afraid of opening a massive can of worms. We all have learned that our Ontario Ministry of Environment are a paper tiger. Uniroyal/Lanxess in conjunction with their consultants (Conestoga Rovers now GHD) have run them in circles for decades. The M.O.E. would rather make self-serving deals in an attempt to save what little credibility they have left, rather than fight and firmly enforce our environmental laws. There are more hazardous waste landfills here within the town of Elmira. They also all likely have methane gas releasing uncontrolled into our air and water. It's no accident that all are on the east side of Elmira, just like the Bolender Landfill. The prevailing winds blow that crap out of town. Our local creek, the Canagagigue still carries industrial wastes as well downstream to be enjoyed further afield by Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge residents. These wastes include those from landfills beside the creek such as the First St. Landfill and the M2 area on Chemtura/Lanxess's south-west corner. It's a mess and it's a mess to date sanctioned by the Ontario M.O.E.. Only public concern and anger will ever get anything done locally to clean up this legacy of industrial pollution in Elmira.

Saturday, September 23, 2017


It is my belief that Woolwich Township have a 5th Degree Black Belt in Snake Oil Gamesmanship. It is my belief that they are world class players in fibbing, obfuscation and in coverups of public interest matters. The evidence is based upon their lies and misrepresentations in their 2 page handout plus map that they distributed to High St. residents last July 26, 2017. It is also based upon the September 14, 2017, ten page report sent to Council by their consultants GHD, at Council's direction. I mean seriously, spending $6,000 more of taxpayers money, on that riddled with errors and misrepresentations, piece of crap? Council seriously you have no shame and no ethics to knowingly lie to residents and spend their tax dollars simply to save face and your precious egos when you've screwed up.

Yesterday I posted here about some other lies and misrepresentations regarding the Bolender Park Landfill. Another is CRA and GHD's focus on alleged lack of gas pressure as being an excuse or mitigating factor when concentrations above the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) are found on the perceived perimeter of the landfill. Well first off it is concentrations not pressure which determine whether or not the gas has the possibility of exploding. Pressure may be one of the factors regarding methane migration but it is not the only one. There are several, including Diffusion (concentration) and Convection (pressure). Even without pressure, methane gas just like a groundwater plume will move from an area of high concentration to a neighbouring area without. Finally these pressure readings in the probes may also be susceptible to groundwater entering the holes in the probe, which were intended to allow gas not groundwater to enter.

CRA's and GHD's Bolender landfill reports are filled with inconsistent actions and reactions to their own monitoring results. After the 2008 to 2010 monitoring results showed lower, albeit still above 20% LEL concentrations, at the west side by the auto wrecking yard, they were all happy including later telling the prospective new owner of the property that methane was no longer a problem. What idiots they are. They also sat on their butts for over five years before monitoring again only to find that the concentrations by the wrecking yard were right back to where they'd been previously. So do they learn from this experience? Apparently not because after they received two zero concentrations from two brand new probes at the east side, following ridiculously high concentrations there in 2008 and 2010; now they are advising the public and the media that there no longer is methane on the east side.

It is exceedingly difficult to reason with either incompetence or unreasonable and lying politicians and their senior staff. When their opinion appears to be that facts are malleable and or that science can be adjusted to your needs; then disaster and crises are to be expected due to their failure to do their due diligence including being truthful to the public.

Friday, September 22, 2017


On the above basis (in the title) one has to congratulate Conestoga Rovers & Associates. Similarly for GHD. As one reads multiple (ten) technical reports from a consultant, spaced over 30 years, one's perceptions of the big picture tends to change. For me the first time through reading the reports I was left with a sense of the blind leading the blind. Holy crap but were all these guys, Township staff and consultants, completely stupid and devoid of common sense? Second time through my perceptions changed somewhat. Third time through as well.

Right now I'm realizing that consultants' reports are an exercise in research, writing, diplomacy, tact and occasionally bluntness. Too much of the latter and the world's best consulting firm will quickly be out of work. The reason: there are absolutely zero qualifications to be a client of a consulting firm, other than being willing to spend your money. Hence clients can be incredibly stupid, incredibly criminal, incredibly biased and incredibly self-serving.

On a totally different note (HA!) let's look at some to date not publicized aspects of the Bolender Park Landfill. For example did you know that despite GHD's nitpicking and silly comments in their September 14/17 review of my August 22/17 Delegation to Woolwich Council; that chemical wastes are specifically mentioned as being industrial wastes in the letter from the 1962 Sanitation Committee to Elmira Town Council? Also if you think about it, what exactly are the industrial wastes from a chemical company? Of course they are chemical wastes! Duh! Hence for this as well as other documentation, chemical wastes were deposited in the Bolender Park Landfill.

Secondly as I have repeated in my multiple Delegations to Council, if you're not going to do continuous monitoring of methane gas probes around your landfill then you at least must monitor them on a regular, ongoing basis. This Woolwich have never requested/ordered their consultants, either CRA or GHD to do. At one point I thought that CRA had been in charge of the monitoring schedule until further backchecking showed that in their September 25, 1987 report (pg. 4) to staff (& Council) they strongly recommended regular monthly gas probe monitoring. Of course Woolwich staff (& Council) failed to do any such thing. Did the buck stop with the Director of Engineering, the Chief Administrative Officer or ultimately with Council? How much were Council kept in the loop?

Last Tuesday evening there was discussion by Dan Kennally regarding a so called natural barrier to methane gas migration. This so called barrier was described as a drainage ditch and then later on Mr. Kennally called it a "creek". At that point I was shocked because no way in hell can anybody describe it as a creek. I believe the term running water was also used. Dear God you stupid, stupid people. As usual there were no questions to me from Council after my Delegation hence I had to sit down. Therefore with the stilted process at Council meetings, neither Delegates nor audience members can offer clarifying comments or points of order from the gallery even in the most egregious cases crying out for clarification of a fact or issue.

Now there are two possibilities here. Either Mr. Kennally was bald faced lying like a dog or he is woefully ignorant of the basic topography of the area between the east end of the Bolender Landfill and the High St/George St./Charles St. subdivision. There is a dry ditch running parallel (ie. north-south) with the eastern border of the landfill and the nearest High St. home. It is not a drainage ditch with the possible exception of a torrential, sustained rainfall and then likely rain water would drain southwards into the park itself. There was no water in it yesterday nor any other time among several this year and last when I have done an environmental field trip to the area. Furthermore a local resident I know well has advised me that he has visited the path beside the ditch with his dog on a regular basis over the last nine years and has NEVER seen water in that ditch.

I suppose there is a third option here for Mr. Kennally. Perhaps, despite being a planner, he is directionally challenged. There is running water running in an east to west direction at the very north end of the landfill. It most likely originates from a tiny spring which is simply groundwater emerging at the ground's surface further east along the Trans Canada Trail (Kissing Bridge Trail). This very small amount of surface water drains westwards towards Arthur St. where it makes a 90 degree left turn (southwards) and most probably drains into the Canagagigue Creek just about where it crosses below Arthur St. beside Walco equipment. This tiny "creek" absolutely is not connected to the totally dry ditch that runs between the landfill and the east side subdivision.

These are not the only lies, misrepresentations or errors, whichever you wish to believe, that were presented to the public by GHD, staff or Council on Tuesday night. By what right do either elected representatives or staff paid by taxpayer money, think that this is acceptable? Consultants being used to hide behind is one thing but blatant and ongoing misrepresentations or lies are something far worse.

Thursday, September 21, 2017


I have recently expressed my disappointment in the Woolwich Observer here in the Advocate. Therefore it is only fair to also express my respect and admiration when they do the right thing and do it pretty well. O.K. so today's Editorial isn't perfect but it's a major step forward. And the cartoon....! I love the cartoon by Scott Arnold. It shows a younger, mustachied and slimmer me confronting a GHD consultant. Not bad.

I have long enjoyed reading Steve Kannon's Editorials and Opinions. He has no idea of how much we share ideologically. I am sure that there are some readers who appreciate the Observer's news coverage while totally disliking Steve's position on politics, corporatism, world events, police states etc.. It is because of this respect for Steve that I continue, despite my disappointment over the Observer's lack of Chemtura/Lanxess coverage, to always give him a copy of my Delegation to Council just prior to the meeting.

I did this as well Tuesday evening. Steve's copy as well as Council's was fourteen pages in length. Two of those pages were my written Delegation and the rest were individual pages mostly from Conestoga Rovers (CRA) reports of 1998, 2007 and 2009. Also included were exerpts from text and borehole logs regarding the subsurface soils in Bolender Park. Lastly was a map showing groundwater monitoring wells in and around Bolender Park including NDMA readings in those wells.

Here's where I will slightly criticize Steve's Editorial. Steve (and Council) have the proverbial smoking gun in writing. GHD, who now own CRA, are both full of hot air and much worse. They have blatantly lied, deceived and misrepresented the truth in their September 14, 2017 review of my August 22/17 Delegation to Council. Their review is part of the Agenda package from last Tuesday (possibly pg. 45-58). The pages from CRA's 1998 and 2007 reports help prove that GHD lied in their report to Council last Tuesday.

The most obvious deception is GHD's claim that the methane gas collection system was "operating" from 1983 or 1984 until 2015 when it was decommissioned. Such utter bullshit and CRA's reports clearly state that the system was not working and should be abandoned both in 1998 and 2007. Further evidence indicates problems as early as 1986, only two years after the system started up. Steve should have unequivocally so stated. He did not.

Ask yourselves why Woolwich Council hired GHD to review THEMSELVES. How ridiculous and asinine is that? GHD own CRA. Woolwich Council literally hired the fox to investigate the thefts of chickens from the chicken coop.

I can appreciate Dan Kennally of Woolwich staff being put between a rock and a hard place. He either follows Council's wishes or he may as well start polishing up his resume right now. Whether it's quite that raw with Steve Kannon I don't know. I do know that half the ownership of the Woolwich Observer are on Woolwich Council. Woolwich Council are in full denial and lying mode regarding the Bolender Park Landfill . Reasons for that are not totally opaque. Woolwich Township built the methane gas collection system back in 1984. Woolwich Township installed an additional gas probe (GP1-95) in 1995 without any holes to allow gas to enter, according to CRA. Were all the old gas probes as well as the newer ones installed incompetently by the Township or just most of them? Who all exactly were involved with this incompetence from the beginning? Could there be a personal connection with a current Council member? Why are Council lying and covering up instead of fixing this mess in the Bolender Park Landfill? So much could be done now to accurately understand the seriousness of the problem. A start would be by drilling boreholes and determining honestly and accurately, the real boundaries of the landfill versus the "approximate" ones they've been working with for thirty-four years.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017


You can not talk reasonably with corrupt people who have some authority. If their agendas include covering up sins and stupidity of the past even to the point of continuing the stupidity while putting others at risk, so be it. Woolwich Council are such an example. While I have vacillated in my opinions as to whether they are totally corrupt or merely totally stupid, at the moment totally corrupt is winning. Keep in mind I deem blatant lying as corruption. Naturally enough most politicians do not.

There is zero doubt that Woolwich Council hired GHD (formerly CRA) to produce a dishonest and misleading report for the purpose of covering up their and Woolwich's abysmal failures in monitoring and collecting methane gas from the Bolender Park landfill. My Delegation last evening was backed up by individual pages and quotes from past CRA Bolender Landfill reports which proved the lies in GHD's September 14/17 report to Council last evening. The most obvious and blatant was the lie that the gas collection system has been "operating" from 1983 until 2015. CRA's reports categorically stated that the system was not working in 1994, 1996 and that it should be abandoned in their 1998 report. They repeated that recommendation (for abandonment) in their 2007 report. Despite this GHD repeatedly claimed that the gas collection system operated throughout the period of either 1983 or 1984 until it was decommissioned in 2015. Such liars you are.

Woolwich Council are shameless. Mark Bauman did his schtick with a Woolwich staffer by asking obviously pre-arranged softball questions allowing the staffer to respond with what superficially appeared to be reasonable, additional precautions for the landfill. They amounted to no more than shooting a water pistol at a forest fire. The staffer's comments on the "organics" and "organic materials" found in Bolender Park coming from a load of fill are not reasonable. These "organics" were found in six different, spaced apart boreholes. Fill does not contain foodstuffs. Municipal garbage does.

Last evening I watched the third episode in the recent PBS documentary on the Vietnam war. A former soldier stated that failed American policies in South-East Asia were one thing but sending young Americans to die there years after the military and politicians knew that the war was unwinnable was something different. It was termed as "killing people for your own egos". Will we have our own mini version right here in Elmira? No, Woolwich Township, your positions and decisions on the Bolender Landfill are not "evidence based". They are politically and ego based. They are face saving based. They are to avoid the public humiliation of poring money into a former hole in the ground and fixing nothing. They are to avoid admitting fault at any cost and that cost just might mean innocent human life. That you and the Woolwich mafia are willing to go to such lengths speaks volumes, about all of you.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017


Looking back over the newspaper clippings I can see why I was such a strong supporter of Susan Bryant and other UPAC and CPAC members. Even Syvia knew to say the right things at the right time in those days. In the Elmira Independent of December 1, 2000 Julie Sawyer wrote about Sylvia Berg and I expressing concerns with allegedly cleaning the creek before cleaning up the site. Hindsight may be again proving us right about that. In the December 22nd edition of the Independent David Ash was again on the defensive over odours under the attacks of Henry Regier, Shannon Purves-Smith and Sylvia.

The Woolwich Observer in those days covered Uniroyal/Crompton issues unlike today. Richard Vivian wrote about the proposed Site Specific Risk Assessment (SSRA). Dr. Henry Regier who had decades of professional experience with Risk Assessments was not supportive of it.

In the December 15/2000 Independent Dwighte Este discussed (via CPAC) Crompton's Worst Case Scenario. Essentially a major spill of Anhydrous Ammonia would result in a human kill zone of approximately 700 metres whereas from 700 to 1300 metres would only result in serious health effects. This still is relevant today not only for long time residents but for all the new ones still planned for the Hawk Ridge Subdivision on Union St. across the road from Sulco and Chemtura/Lanxess. Gail Martin was the author of this article in the Independent.

In the December 23/2000 edition of the Woolwich Observer Henry Regier took aim at the practice of Elmira volunteers taking air samples on behalf of the M.O.E. and Uniroyal/Crompton. Henry felt that the volunteers should be paid for "...going out at all hours of the day and night, usually bad weather to do this.". I added to that opinion by suggesting that " at $100 a pop, I'll come in from West Montrose and take samples. For free in the middle of the night, I'm not interested.". Apparently Shannon and Sylvia were still willing to do it for free.

Both local papers (Independent & Observer) published the fact that Uniroyal had agreed to pay the Region of Waterloo $90,000 towards their costs caused by Uniroyal's "pink spill" the previous spring. This massive spill of toluene had killed the bacteria in the Elmira Sewage Treatment Plant and caused a release into the Canagagigue Creek of partially treated sewage. Nearby homes had also had sewage back up into them. Part of the deal included quarterly inspections of Uniroyal's site by the Region of Waterloo. The K-W record also reported on this agreement.

On January 19, 2001 the Independent reported on a presentation to Council by the Regional health department. It was in regards to air emissions and links to them with adverse health effects. The presentation also included factors such as a loss of enjoyment of one's property due to air and odour emissions from local polluters.

The beat goes on to this day regarding the adverse effects suffered by local residents from Uniroyal Chemical and all its' corporate successors.

Monday, September 18, 2017


My friend and environmental colleague, Dr. Henry Regier, has sent me a wonderful report titled "Aquatic Habitat and Fish Survey of Brydson Creek" dated January 2015. Brydson Creek is a headwater tributary to Blue Springs Creek which is a tributary to the Eramosa River at Eden Mills, Ontario. Brydsen Creek is the creek which runs through the location of Hidden Quarry mentioned here last Friday. This report was prepared by K. Schiefer, Ph.D. an Aquatic Biologist. The study was commissioned by the Concerned Residents Coalition of Rockwood, Ontario.

The property studied and part of the Brydson Creek examined is immediately downstream of the location of the Hidden Quarry. The purpose of the study was to determine if a viable population of Brook trout existed and reproduced in the Brydson Creek. Not only do Brook trout live in this stretch of the creek but they thrive. "The Eramosa River and the Blue Spring Creek, have long been considered to contain some of the highest quality cold-water fish habitat within the Grand River Watershed.".

To state that Hidden Quarry threatens this environmental and ecological jewel is an understatement. The quarry is expected via blasting with explosives to go 23 metres below the water table upstream of the area examined in this study. This is but another shameful example of how we are destroying our planet, one bite at a time. James Dick Construction allegedly needs another quarry and profit centre and we the residents of this planet have no real say in the matter. Once again science and truth are trumped by money, power and hopelessly ignorant and corrupt politicians enacting laws that favour money and power while sacrificing the planet we live on.

Friday, September 15, 2017


My wife came back from a minor expedition to Eden Mills the other day with a pamphlet titled "Stop Hidden Quarry". This pamphlet may well be a year old as it mentions an upcoming September 2016 OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) hearing. Our OMB is currently under review and for good reason. Their decisions have long been extremely helpful to developers of all kinds and not so helpful to the rest of us or the environment.

Hidden Quarry is located beside Highway #7 and 6th Eramosa Line, approximately 1000 metres from homes in Rockwood, Ontario. It involves mining with explosives to 23 metres below the water table. The applicant (James Dick Construction Ltd.-JDCL) projects an annual extraction of 700,000 tonnes of gravel and rock.

There will be issues with noise, dust, blasting vibration, fly rock landing on neighbouring properties and Hwy # 7, both surface and groundwater contamination, traffic, residential well contamination, brook trout habitat and other wildlife and environmental impacts. Quarries under the best of circumstances are not neighbour or environment friendly. This quarry definitely is not under the best of circumstances.

Two websites mentioned in the pamphlet are and . A contact given is

Thursday, September 14, 2017


"Elevated methane levels don't extend to nearby residents". Well with a sub-title like that is it any wonder Councillor Merlihan why those same residents haven't been attending Council meetings asking for information? This past Tuesday the Councillor and co-owner of the Woolwich Observer asked me why I was still appearing at Council regarding the Bolender Park Landfill methane issues while the residents were not. While there was some useful information in the Observer's story and Editorial of August 3/17, the misleading sub-title was not conducive to bringing out citizens in droves to Council meetings.

This past Tuesday was my third Delegation to Council on this matter. Each Delegation has been a presentation of entirely different data and facts. This most recent one was a compilation of ten facts from nine different scientific and technical articles all of which were listed and given to Woolwich Council. Despite this both Sandy Shantz and Councillor Merlihan attempted to suggest that my statements were no more than opinions. I politely advised them otherwise.

What is my opinion however is the following. Newspapers are supposed to be skeptical by nature. This particularly includes the puffery and heavy duty horse manure peddled by politicians at all levels. My opinion is that since the election of Patrick Merlihan to Woolwich Council, that scrutiny and skepticism have lessened greatly. This is to the direct loss of Woolwich citizens and residents. Yes Patrick Tuesday night at Council dug in his heels on a proposed starting increase of 1.8% municipal taxes for local taxpayers. Yes on occasion he has been either the sole voice of commonsense or part of only two Councillors doing so. Regardless I believe that he is trying to walk a tightrope whether or not he has severed his day to day responsibilities to the Woolwich Observer. Patrick you can not serve two masters simultaneously. The Observer need an owner who is not trying so hard to work collegially with a bunch of self-serving incompetents on Council.

That collegiality may extend to the Observer's failure to present my case, as expressed in three Delegations to Council, that the monitoring and reporting of methane gas at the Bolender Landfill has been inadequate to say the least. These failures by the Township's consultants have understated the extent and distribution of methane gas at or above the Lower Explosive Level (LEL) and hence the risk to local citizens and businesses. The consultant's reports have also understated the actual physical size of the Bolender Landfill also minimizing the risk of methane gas being closer to homes and businesses.

To date I have received nothing but bald and bland assurances from Staff, Council, consultants and the Woolwich Fire Chief that everything is O.K.. What I have not received is any confirmation that the entire perimeter of the landfill will be monitored. I have not received any confirmation that gas probe monitoring will occur either continuously or even on a regular schedule, year round. I have not been assured that Woolwich will look for the real boundaries of the landfill much more diligently. I have not been assured that Woolwich will do their due diligence by installing methane warning alarms in houses nearest the landfill. And on and on.

I have mentioned the upcoming "review" and report due to be presented in Council next Tuesday. This is neither a third party review nor a peer review. It is the fox commenting on the currently wonderful security around the hen house. At best GHD and Woolwich staff will discuss a few of the facts and failings I have pointed out. At worst it will be a veiled hatchet job of one of the few Woolwich residents willing to do the work and research on behalf of the public interest.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017


My Delegation last evening was strong and forceful. While delivered calmly, politely and respectfully, nevertheless it delivered a punch. I made it clear to the Woolwich Councillors that my statements of fact were exactly that. They were not simply uninformed opinions. I included the list of technical documents written by experts in the field from which I compiled my list of advice and direction for managers of old, methane producing landfill sites. I advised that my "opinions" were based upon reading both ten Conestoga Rovers reports as well as the many others that I listed. Despite that Sandy Shantz via her question afterwards rather bluntly attempted to suggest that it was simply my opinion contrary to Conestoga Rovers (CRA/GHD). She had objected to my final sentence in which I referred to "...inadequate landfill monitoring and supervision". Regardless I thanked her for her question and hopefully did not exude the same animosity that she did.

Patrick Merlihan was much more polished and diplomatic with his questions. When staff were asked by Chair Murray Martin for questions to me they wisely deferred. Either they know that my comments and criticisms of CRA's ten reports are dead on or else they realize that my knowledge and understanding of the facts exceeds theirs.

I believe that the real bombshell last evening was a part of my response to one of Councillor Merlihan's questions regarding why when local residents apparently weren't concerned and as I didn't live there, why was I pursuing this. Part of my response included pointing out that Woolwich managed to lurch into the Elmira water crisis in 1989 with eyes firmly closed and that there was no need to lurch into a methane crisis now when solutions such as indoor methane warning devices were so simple and inexpensive. The real kicker was when I publicly informed Council that I had read the Geotechnical Report produced for the new splashpad. I further gave them the terminology used in the report describing sand, gravel, clay, fill and ORGANICS found in the sub-surface. You could have heard a pin drop. Organics of course refer to organic wastes or foodstuffs. Foodstuffs as in municipal garbage.

I then advised them that clearly CRA's "approximate" locations for the boundaries of the Bolender Park Landfill are understated. Garbage is behind the George St. homes putting them at risk of methane intrusion and explosions especially as zero methane testing has been done on the south side of the landfill.

I was also asked by Councillor Merlihan if staff had cooperated with me on my concerns. I said no they had not as I had asked twice for a sit down meeting with them in order to go over the CRA reports in detail.

Of course Patrick gave me a huge opening with his comments about citizens being unconcerned. I should have advised that that may well be a result of the misinformation in his newspaper (Observer) telling local residents that there were no methane concerns. I did not unfortunately. Now lets see what the Woolwich Observer have to say in this Thursday edition about my Delegation last evening.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017


Rueters News Agency: "Monsanto sues to keep herbicide off California list of carcinogens".

Glyphosate also known as Roundup has been a huge moneymaker for Monsanto for a very long time. Clearly they are prepared to defend their money making herbicide against all claims, allegations and downright serious, scientific determinations that it is probably carcinogenic. For me I have long seen Glyphosate listed in the Region of Waterloo Annual (Drinking Water) Reports as being present in our drinking water at a concentration of < 25 ppb. Do you know what that means? Well join the club as most people don't and that is exactly how the Region of Waterloo and Ontario Ministry of Environment want it. <25 ppb. means that Glyphosate is present in our drinking water anywhere from zero up to 24.9 parts per billion. The symbol < means "less than". Most of the chemicals in our drinking water have drinking standards between 2 and 20 parts per billion with some lower and some higher. Most of these chemicals can be measured as low as either .5 or .2 parts per billion hence their method detection limits (MDL) are .2 or .5 ppb.. Glyphosate prior to being listed as probably carcinogenic had an extremely high drinking water standard, possibly 300 ppb.. Hence even though it can likely be measured at very low detection limits, surprise, surprise, the Region had a MDL of 25 ppb.. For me this was an immediate red flag. Afterall Glyphosate or Roundup is used by both farmers and residents on fields as well as on lawns. For it to be ubiquitous in our groundwater is hardly a surprise. Apparently even with the very high drinking water standard (likely to be lowered) the Region don't want citizens to see a positive number such as five or six parts per billion in their drinking water.

Why did the state of California add Glyphosate to their list of cancer-causing chemicals in the first place? Well hardly for a frivolous reason. The World Health Organization's (WHO) well respected International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as a probable carcinogen last March. Monsanto are upset. Monsanto are also the recipients of numerous lawsuits accusing them of knowing the dangers of Glyphosate for decades. Science can never be ahead of all the chemicals that human kind have added to the world but they are doing their best. Law on the other hand will now treat the well off Monsanto with kid gloves. They will be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue making millions or billions more dollars while these lawsuits drag on for decades. Money has friends in high places especially in our corporate dominated democracies.

Monday, September 11, 2017


Shoot The Messenger Time Again!

Well they got their wee noses out of joint over half of them getting caught either fudging their election expenses or taking self-serving, illegal shortcuts such as not filing a Financial Statement at all. Not to mention Sandy not filing a legally mandated Auditor's Report. They also didn't like CPAC members going to Council and pointing out the excellent work they had accomplished during the previous four years. Afterall they had been too successful and Chemtura and the MOECC were crying like babies because CPAC didn't defer to them or their high priced, client driven consultants. Then of course Council also misbehaved badly in trying to censor Dr. Dan Holt, myself and CPAC from bringing Chemtura (now Lanxess) issues to Council by way of Delegation. We were bluntly told to take our concerns elsewhere, that Council refused to hear us. Boy did they look stupid over that one and they were properly, publicly chastised because of it. Then of course they were also embarrassed by Dr. Richard Jackson's (Chair of TAG) blunt, public assessments of the incompetence demonstrated by Uniroyal/Chemtura/CRA and their partners in pollution the Ontario MOECC.

And here we are again. Now it turns out that they've been asleep at the switch regarding explosive methane levels in and around businesses and certainly home(s) nearest the east end of the landfill wherever that east end might be. Worse yet they have NEVER tested for methane into the park (Bolender) itself because just like Uniroyal Chemical they know that you will never find what you don't test for. Zero methane testing on the south side of the Bolender landfill. That just might be because they already know that municipal refuse (garbage) is buried in the park itself and boy is that embarrassing. Especially after insisting that that is the best place to install the new splashpad.

Saturday evening I received an e-mail from our local Fire Chief. He advised that the Township's consultants (GHD), based upon the 2015 and 2016 test results, were declaring that all was well in and around the Bolender Park Landfill. No issues of any kind. Of course also no response or specific comments to the huge monitoring time gaps and location gaps over the last thirty years. Oddly no references either to the horrendous methane concentrations found in 2015 and 2016 near the west end of the landfill, in and around the old auto wrecking yard. Also no reference to the Township's demands that a new methane collection system be built and installed at the west end and likely north side as well. Apparently their minds can comprehend the explosive nature of methane in only two directions, west and north. South and east simply don't exist.

I will present my third methane Delegation tomorrow evening in Council Chambers. Woolwich have not been on top of this file and much more needs to be done. Hiding behind their consultants and pretending all is well is exactly how and why we will not reach the promised cleanup of the Elmira Aquifers by 2028. After nearly thirty years of puffery, nonsense and exaggeration even Uniroyal/Chemtura/M.O.E. now admit that 2028 won't happen. Guess who is the same consultant to Uniroyal Chemical regarding groundwater cleanup and also Woolwich Township regarding methane gas? Same one folks. Are we now going to count on them and their clients (Woolwich) to behave more proactively? Also keep in mind that consultants give advice. Clients don't always follow it. The buck stops with the client.

Saturday, September 9, 2017


In early July I became aware of methane problems in and around the Bolender Park landfill via reading ten reports produced by Conestoga Rovers & Assoc. between 1983 and 2016. I posted here on July 15/17 and I distributed two letters to High St., Charles St. and George St. residents. Woolwich Township responded two days after my July 24/17 letter with a letter of their own to those residents. The Township's letter was either intentionally ingenuous, inaccurate and intended to minimize a serious problem or it was just plain incompetence on their part. I gave them the benefit of the doubt at that point.

Since then, in writing, I have offered to sit down on two separate occasions with planning/engineering staff to discuss and clarify these issues. I have been rebuffed both times. I presented a Delegation to Council on behalf of the ten Citizens Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) members on August 1 and again on August 22/17. To date I have received exactly zero written response from either Woolwich staff or their consultants CRA (GHD) addressing my comments and facts in either Delegation. That is shameful. They have however written a "review" of my second Delegation (Aug. 22) allegedly and delivered it to Woolwich Council on Friday September 1/17. To date this has been denied to me.

I have been advised by e-mail from Sandy Shantz that there will be a "report" to Council at their Tuesday September 19/17 public Council meeting. Sandy has advised me that I will receive a copy of that report on Friday September 15/17. Based upon Woolwich's letter to residents (July 26/17), their total lack of questions to me as a Delegate to Council twice, their response to CKCO-TV Kitchener on August 22/17 that they had no concerns regarding methane reaching residents from the Bolender landfill and their refusal to either sit down with me (twice) combined with their refusal to date to show me the "review' done by CRA (GHD) & staff; what would your expectation be of the veracity and accuracy of this "report" being done by the guilty parties in the first place? I also doubt that they will be willing to directly address my facts and knowledge of the situation. It's much more likely that they will simply disparage and shoot the messenger. That is their style and history.

Friday, September 8, 2017


The universe came together last evening at the Remediation Advisory Committee (RAC). While everything that is wrong with TAG and RAC could fill a book nevertheless there actually was some good news presented last evening. First and foremost the Ontario M.O.E. barely a year or two late dropped the hammer on Mr. Stroh regarding access to his property for testing. That said do not get the idea that I think that Mr. Stroh has done anything wrong because I don't. Precisely why should he be happy about granting access to his property for environmental testing to prove that his private property has been contaminated by his next door neighbour Uniroyal Chemical/Lanxess? We were told last evening by Ramin Ansari of Lanxess that the field work will start the week after next. Finally!

The testing will be both directly on Mr. Stroh's property as well as on Lanxess's property along the area known as the "Gap". This is the area that Conestoga Rovers intentionally failed to test when they tested the rest of the eastern and southern property lines back in 2015. The testing on the Stroh property will be advanced further eastwards on his property if the first results indicate contamination. It is difficult to see how the early results could not do so based upon the ridiculously high readings of both Dioxin/Furans and DDT found on the border in 2015. The final Report is scheduled to be released in February 2018.

The Ontario M.O.E. have also approved the Workplan for further testing of creek sediments and floodplain soils downstream in the Canagagigue Creek. While it is far from perfect and did not have the required input from the most informed Elmira and Woolwich residents, nevertheless it is better than originally planned and does incorporate some good requests from TAG. The M.O.E. also had demands some of which were met by Lanxess/GHD and this will help as well. Astoundingly this project as well will get started this fall and the final Report is scheduled for release in March 2018. I know, I know, relying on promises from the polluter, his regulator (M.O.E.) and or his consultants is extremely risky business. Once again we shall see.

Tiffany Svensson spoke about discussions at the technical experts meeting regarding the allegedly unexpected mass of chlorobenzene unaccounted for in the Elmira Aquifers. This will be explored over the next couple of months albeit once again without the best informed locals involved. The most likely source is the textile industry of which several were in operation in Elmira during the past 100 years. The most likely candidate is of course Borg Textiles for a number of reasons which I have elucidated here in the past.

Sebastian raised a number of questions and concerns at the meeting including asking Jason Rice of the M.O.E. if they would start making certain sampling information available to the technical experts. My guess is that the M.O.E. have some historical shallow soil and or groundwater readings around town that could shed light on other sources of contamination to the Elmira Aquifers. This probably includes gas stations, other industries and certainly Varnicolor Chemical. I doubt that it includes one very private, horrific contaminated now somewhat remediated site at the north end of town (not Uniroyal). Perhaps the M.O.E. might even share soil data from four former landfills around town. One can only hope although note this will all be kept hidden from Elmira and Woolwich residents. We only pay the tax dollars municipally, regionally and provincially and apparently do not have any rights to this information as it is "too sensitive". What that means is that it is too embarrassing to the local power structure that they have not done their duty over the decades.

Ramin Ansari also indicated that the enhanced pump & treat is up and running and while only at 50% pumping soon should be at its' target pumping rates. Once again we will see as the promises from Uniroyal/Chemtura over the last twenty years have been nothing but wind.

A colleague has suggested to me that maybe Lanxess are a totally different fish from Uniroyal/Chemtura. It's even been suggested to me that GHD is totally different from Conestoga Rovers. To date I am not convinced although I will admit to seeing some light shining in a few areas. This is why I continue to attend Sandy & Mark's pretend consultation meetings (RAC & TAG) and why I continue to read all reports I can get my hands on. That said access to these reports is much more difficult and irregular than before this Council's election in late 2014. I need to know if the next thirty years will be as full of BS, puffery and public relations as the last thirty years.

P.S. Sept.12/17 One last point: At he last RAC meeting in June (15th) Councillor Mark Bauman after responding to Susan Bryant's hand in the air and allowing her to ask a question; he then asked if there were any other questions from the audience. I responded as stated in my June 16/17 posting here. This meeting Sandy was Chair and while I had a couple of questions prepared Sandy as usual did not ask if the audience had any questions.

Thursday, September 7, 2017


I've recently posted about the five year wait (if we're lucky) to have the off-site pump & treat system enhanced. Theoretically it has started albeit with minimal new wells and increased pumping to date. Similarly is the east side investigations of Uniroyal contaminants that have flowed either above or below ground onto the Stroh farm on Uniroyal/Lanxess's eastern border. That's been nearly three years since the old CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) and SWAT (Soil, Water, Air & Technical) combined with MTE Consultants, produced a report advising of the high probability of contamination on the Stroh property due to the actions of Uniroyal Chemical. We will receive an update this evening at the public RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) meeting as to whether or not either Lanxess or the Ontario Ministry of Environment have even received permission to step on the Stroh property to take soil and groundwater samples. My guess is that they have not but I am certain that we will receive more assurances from the M.O.E. that it is coming.

The issues on the east side are huge. They should also include sampling of the sediments in the Stroh Drain as recommended by Peter Gray of MTE as well as sampling of the surface water. Also the "Gap" needs to be tested both on Uniroyal/Lanxess's property as well as on the Stroh property. This "Gap" is directly opposite and parallel to the approximate 170 metre stretch of the Stroh Drain which runs north-south beside and perhaps 20 metres away the property line with Uniroyal/Lanxess.

Other serious issues abound on the Stroh property such as the source of the pipe discharging into the extreme north end of the Stroh Drain. Is this groundwater from the Stroh property, the Uniroyal property or both? Finally the true location of GP1 needs to be proven and if as likely it is on the north-east side of the high ground (diagonal ridge) then it needs to be excavated as the false GP1 was a few years ago because the bulk of Dioxins, DDT and other toxins never made it into the now excavated GP1. They would have both settled in the ground plus flowed overland directly into the Stroh Drain. In fact that was the most likely reason for the Drain being installed in 1985. In other words to by-pass the Uniroyal property and monitoring and flow into the Canagagigue Creek further downstream. I expect this important work with Woolwich Council's assistance will take more years of delay and procrastination. This is of course helped along by denying honest public consultation with informed citizens who ask tough questions.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017


Tomorrow evening at 5 pm. the Remediation Advisory Committee (RAC) meets in Woolwich Council Chambers. To be discussed are the new and long overdue expansion of the off-site pump & treat system. This apparent increase in pumping of the Elmira Aquifers is supposed to somewhat make up for the lack of pumping over the last nineteen years since off-site pumping belatedly started in the summer of 1998 nearly a decade after the drinking wells were shut down. A sense of urgency has never been a hallmark of Uniroyal/Crompton, Chemtura and now Lanxess.

Increased pumping however is admitted to be inadequate to have the Elmira Aquifers at drinking water standards by 2028. Therefore tomorrow evening they will also be discussing Technology Evaluations. Note not new technologies but well tested and established technologies that could have and should have been used decades ago. In Situ Chemical Oxidation (ISCO) is but one that is being considered. It was ruled out in the past both due to me being the first to present a Delegation to CPAC on it (2008) as well as it being tested very poorly by Chemtura/CRA around 2014. This poor testing is as per Dr. Richard Jackson.

Another upcoming local environmental event is my third Delegation to Council next Tuesday at 7 pm. Most Councils might have clued in by now that their handling of methane gas at the Bolender Park Landfill has been inadequate for decades and they are playing Russian Roulette with people's lives and property. Not so our local group of geniuses. This upcoming Delegation is titled "New Developments and Information regarding the Bolender Park Landfill". The single communication I have received to date is a brief e-mail from Sandy Shantz a week ago last Monday in which she advised me that a "review" was being done of my August 22/17 Delegation. She also advised that it was scheduled to be completed by last Friday and that I would receive a copy of it. Still nothing! Either it's very late or Council are embarrassed to release it which I find a tad surprising.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017


I continue to inform myself on all things to do with methane gas. That means that among Woolwich staff, politicians and myself there is at least one of us who wants to know the facts. Unfortunately I suspect it is also possible that this research I am doing is not even being done by Woolwich's consultants. If it is then I can only hope that they are bright enough to keep a written record (e-mail?) of their correspondence with Woolwich because their client will cheerfully throw them under the bus if this thing explodes in all their faces, pun intended.

On-line one can find articles from academia regarding landfill gas, methane and collection and venting of these gases. Many university researchers over decades have advanced the knowledge of methane production and migration. There are also on-line documents from the U.S. EPA and also various state environmental departments advising of both legal requirements concerning landfill gas monitoring and collection as well as backgrounders for municipal bureaucrats as to their duties and responsibilities. Finally there are even private companies including consulting companies sharing advice and direction for environmental managers dealing with methane problems.

Hence the title above. The reports written by Conestoga Rovers & Assoc. (CRA) are lacking in a number of aspects. Many of them I listed in my first Delegation to Council back on August 1, 2017. The question arises however as to private correspondence and or conversations between Woolwich and CRA. Has Woolwich Staff and Council been sitting in the gallery meekly accepting everything CRA gave them or have they been active participants challenging conclusions and recommendations or even pushing CRA in the direction they wish to go? Have they been pushing CRA in the directions they don't want them to go, namely south and east towards the park and the subdivision?

All of these reports emphasize monitoring for methane around the entire perimeter of landfills. This has not occurred with the Bolender Park Landfill. All of them emphasize the importance of either continuous monitoring of methane or if one-time "snap shot", grab sampling; the fact that it must be conducted at regular intervals according to a detailed plan. Neither has occurred at the Bolender Park Landfill. Barometric pressure is a huge factor in the migration of methane and barometer pressures should be included in routine reports. They have not been.

Near surface gas monitoring should also be used for a myriad of reasons. It can be used on the surface of the landfill to locate cracks in the cover and pinpoint hot spots and it can and should also be used inside nearby buildings. Basement cracks etc can be pinpointed and repaired thus reducing intrusion of methane gas. This has not occurred as per CRA's ten reports.

Migration of methane from landfills is more likely in the winter when the ground is frozen over the landfill forcing methane to move laterally under the increased pressure as it is not being directly vented upwards. Hence monitoring rounds should occur during the winter months as well. Essentially fair weather monitoring alone will understate both pressure and concentrations of methane gas. Generally this has been the case over the last thirty years here in Elmira.

Back on August 1, 2017 in my Delegation to Council I politely suggested that they obtain a peer review of Conestoga Rover's reports. To date they have not advised me of their intent to do so. It is needed desperately.

Saturday, September 2, 2017


"Good faith"? Eh not so much. Last Monday Sandy Shantz advised me by e-mail that the Township's consultants and the Township's staff were doing an "internal review" of my August 22/17 Delegation to Council. Anybody see just the tiniest bit of a conflict of interest when we are talking internal reviews of a citizen's critical Delegation by two parties who are both getting paid by the Township? Trust me Woolwich Council are deaf, dumb and blind to what is and isn't a conflict of interest. The disgrace of benefits and perks flowing to two current TAG members due to their long time involvement with Chemtura is the proof of the pudding on that one.

An example of more "good faith": After my Delegation to Woolwich Council, a spokesperson for Woolwich advised CKCO-TV Kitchener that they had no concerns about methane from the Bolender Park Landfill reaching residents. At a minimum this was broadcast on local television on the late news Tuesday August 22/17 and again the next day at noon hour five days prior to Sandy advising me in writing that Council were having a "review" done of my Delegation. Any wee chance those good folks already have their minds made up BEFORE any "review" takes place?

As stated last Monday Sandy told me that this "review' was scheduled to be completed by yesterday, Friday September 1/17 and that I would receive a copy. Well guess what? No "review" has crossed my threshold whether by mail, e-mail, carrier pigeon or personal delivery. Now this does not necessarily mean she lied to me. There are many possibilities including deception versus lying. Sandy said that I would receive a copy. She didn't say when or even in a timely fashion. Remember folks we are dealing with politicians here not saints. Words are weapons and if you can throw off or confuse your enemies (ie. critics) with a few well chosen verbal or written deceptions then why not?

Other possibilities include simple tardiness on the part of staff or Conestoga Rovers (GHD). Or perhaps Woolwich Council want to analyse and enjoy a possibly highly critical (albeit dishonest) "review" of my Delegation by their bought and paid for helpers. Or heaven forbid the two parties who in my opinion have not been on top of this file since almost the beginning, may actually have confirmed the accuracy of my two Delegations (Aug. 1 & Aug. 22). Kudos to them if they have manned up and produced a "review" that will produce positive changes to their current poor monitoring locations, timing and failure to be collecting and venting methane from the entire perimeter of the landfill, wherever that might be.

There are other possibilities as third parties, as alluded to a few days ago, are beginning to respond. These have included external authorities contacting the Woolwich Fire Department with concerns. It is possible that these developments may have affected either Council's schedule or their overall game plan. My goal is to have Woolwich staff and Council do their duty and their due diligence in preventing the possibilty of methane explosions or fires caused by the Bolender Park Landfill.

Friday, September 1, 2017


The Remediation Advisory Committee meets on a quarterly basis hence September, December, March and June. This is entirely inadequate and exactly what Chemtura/Lanxess and the Ministry of Environment want. What they want they get in spades here in Woolwich Township. What they don't want is a monthly grilling by informed and upset citizens tired of their bluster, delay and horse manure.

Item 4.1 on the Agenda is Off-Site Contaminant Removal. Unfortunately it appears as written that they are only referring to dissolved contaminant removal in the Elmira Aquifers. The east side (Stroh farm) investigation appears in Agenda Item 4.2.1 and states "East side work awaiting access via MOECC means". All credit goes to Chemtura/Lanxess and the Ontario M.O.E. in once again achieving incredible delay by not having arranged this access either by negotiation or legal means a year ago. Likely this means sampling will have to wait for better weather next spring and summer rather than being completed this season.

The latest round of monitoring of the Canagagigue Creek sediments and soils in the floodplain has yet to start also as we await the latest revisions and the presentation of them next Thursday. Apparently literally five years of sediments, soils and even fish tissue residues is not yet adequate to convince the brain trusts at the M.O.E. as to how much removal of contaminated sediments and soils is necessary. Oops reality check here. They have known for decades what needs doing. They and their "client" Chemtura/Lanxess just don't want to do it. A million dollars delayed is a whole lot saved.

How wonderfully munificent it is of the M.O.E. and Chemtura/lanxess to deign to meet with the unwashed masses aka stakeholders and or the public four whole times a year. Shame on every last politician who's been involved in this public relations exercise and ongoing thirty year delaying scheme.