CHEMTURA, M.O.E. & CRA HAVE LONG KNOWN THAT 2028 CLEANUP WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN

Wilf Ruland has recently taken an appropriate shellacking here for his behaviour in 2007 and early 2008. At the same time I felt that his overall input prior to those dates was definitely both positive and primarily in the public interest. If not I would have spoken out much sooner. Some of it undoubtedly was not knowing of his private relationship with Council, Pat and Susan and the rest was watching his comments and statements at public CPAC meetings. We'll get back to this shortly.

The December 1, 2001 K-W Record had a story about four Elmira (Duke St.) families suing Crompton for $7.4 million. The four families were the Machens, Posts, Posts and Fulchers. This was in relation to the previous three plus years of fumigations from the company.

The December 21, 2001 Elmira Independent also covered this story. The money was asked for as well as an injunction from the courts restraining the defendants from conducting activities which constitute a nuisance to the Plaintiffs. A total of 19 claims were put forward including that Crompton acted with "wanton disregard to the Plaintiff's rights.". Crompton's Statement of Defence specifically denied the claim of wanton disregard.

The Woolwich Observer also published this story on December 22, 2001. Crompton's defence included that they have a legal right to continue manufacturing at that location as they've been doing so since 1941. Furthermore they claimed that Terry Machen allegedly attempted to intimidate both their employees and management. Poor babies. Imagine that; they crap all over this man's rights, property, family and health and he yells harsh things at them. Finally Crompton claimed that the Plaintiffs have an abnormal sensitivity to odours which wouldn't have the same effect on an individual with normal sensitivity. Hmm and I thought that laws and regulations were to protect all citizens from infringement of their rights including the right to breathe reasonably clean air.

Again in the Decenber 21, 2001 Independent, Julie Sawyer writes that CPAC and APT were cost sharing a review of Conestoga Rover's (CRA) proposed Ammonia Treatment System. Yes that's the same Ammonia Treatment System that hadn't been built in early 2007 and which was partly the cause of the split with CPAC. Susan Bryant made the Motion, I seconded it, Art Fletcher opposed it and Fred Hager abstained. Interesting.

Both DNAPL cleanup as well as Optimization Studies were discussed at length in 2002. The Ministry of Environment were still making excuses for not moving on and accepting or rejecting Crompton's efforts to date regarding on-site Dense Non-Aqueous Phase (DNAPL) cleanup. I was quoted in the March 1, 2002 Independent as follows" Here we are nine years later and the remediation cleanup is still not done to satisfaction." "The whole point is that this has dragged on for 9 years. I'm sick of reading Control Orders that are reinterpreted years later.".

Regarding "Optimization" and other Crompton/CRA games we will go back to Wilf Ruland as stated in the first paragraph. Wilf was hired to review CRA's plans. He stood up and publicly gave CPAC his assessment of CRA's Optimization plans. He advised that at least for now CPAC should resist any plans to allow contaminated on-site groundwater to flow off-site. He stated that that was a huge shift and that serious community discussion was required before that could or should happen. Wilf advised that CRA had made many "interesting" assumptions in their study all of which could be problematic. Finally Wilf stated that the definition of CRA's Optimization "...seemed to be consistent with optimizing the amount of money spent." ie. minimizing it.

Wilf also stated that the on-site contamination at Uniroyal/Crompton was likely significantly worse than the groundwater plumes indicated. He also stated "I think the Ministry has treated this (on-site containment) as more as a goal rather than an absolute requirement.'. Wilf, Susan Bryant and myself all publicly stated at CPAC that the Crompton site was not contained in spite of the 1991 Control Order. In fact at a much later date we learned that the corrupt M.O.E. had amended that Control Order on June 21, 2000 (Kal Haniff) allowing a relaxing of the on-site containment if the Optimization plan was accepted. Talk about quietly putting the cart before the horse. All the while never correcting CPAC membvers for years on when they quoted the 1991 Control Order as requiring full on-site hydraulic containment. Bastards!

Wilf did good at this public CPAC meeting and in reviewing CRA's Optimization Plan. So how did Optimization allegedly ever get accepted? My guess is Wilf, Pat and Susan then later on went behind CPAC's back and gave their O.K.. It all had to be done quietly as I and others felt that Optimization Plan had finally had a stake driven through its' heart after the discovery of the "phantom mound by yours truly in 2004. This off-site hydraulic "mound" had been Uniroyal/Crompton's excuse for years as it appeared to be assisting in maintaining on-site containment of contaminants. It turned out to be a sham and was only quietly admitted to in a monthly Progress Report that I alone found. Susan Bryant later named it as the "phantom" mound.