WILF OVERSTEPS HIS BOUNDS.

DNAPLS were an ongoing topic throughout 2006 at CPAC despite Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura's reluctance to do so. The 2003 Request For Action presented by the Soil & Water Committee to CPAC, the Ministry and Crompton had put DNAPLS back on the Agenda. That being said I knew that they had to be a bit of a difficult topic for Susan Bryant based upon APT's bizarre embracing of the DNAPL status quo after the Ministry (M.O.E.) accepted Uniroyal/Conestoga Rovers' position in a December 10, 1993 letter. APT's quiet acceptance under the leadership of Sylvia Berg (Susan was in India) had initiated the split with APT of Richard Clausi, Esther Thur and myself. In fact Sylvia's DNAPL position alone would not have caused the split. It was her winner take all, hostile attitude, instantly displayed when she won the APT vote that did it for me. She felt emboldened to take punitive action against myself within APT.

So in December 2006 Susan invited me to attend a meeting along with Pat Mclean and Wilf Ruland at the University of Waterloo. Keep in mind that I was the CPAC "expert" on DNAPLS based both upon my destruction of Brian Beatty over his DNAPL misquote way back about 1992 as well as my plain hard work, research and effort. The topic was DNAPLS and we were meeting with two world renowned experts in the field namely Dr. John Cherry and Dr. Beth Parker. What a breathe of fresh air. These were two people only interested in the evidence and the facts as I was. There were no political ramifications, stroking of egos or other peripheral considerations. The facts and only the facts. Wilf Ruland had actually been taught by Dr. Cherry and considered him a bit of a mentor.

Now prior to the meeting, including the drive together to the university, I was getting an odd impression. It seemed to me that Pat, Wilf and Susan viewed this meeting possibly as a confirmation that DNAPLS were best left alone in the subsurface. Considering that Susan, Fred Hager, Henry Regier and I had all worked together on the 2003 Request For Action strongly advising source removal of free phase and possibly residual DNAPLS, this seemed odd to me. Regardless we were soon talking to the two Doctors plus they gave out a number of their various recent publications on the subject. Well...! Yes Wilf was correct in that the old understanding back when he was attending University was that sub-surface DNAPLS if disturbed might be remobilized and move further as in either vertically or laterally thus compounding the groundwater contamination problem. However both Dr. Cherry and Dr. Parker emphasized that new thinking was unanimous that DNAPLS, especially free phase, needed to be either removed physically from the subsurface where possible or somehow either physically encapsulated or chemically broken down. Otherwise their long term dissolution into the groundwater would contaminate it above drinking water standards either for decades or even centuries.

The four of us left the meeting with me I believe almost floating above the ground. I was ecstatic whereas the other three were incredibly subdued. What the hell? Their downcast attitudes I found very strange. At the meeting when the technical DNAPL publications were handed out the other three handed them all to me stating that I could read them all first. Later I tried to give them to Susan for her to read but she never wanted them. It was an eye opening, albeit too late.

All through the rest of 2007 I was asking Pat and Susan when we were going to make a presentation to CPAC about this meeting. IT NEVER HAPPENED! Wilf, Pat and Susan NEVER to my knowledge have told anyone at CPAC or the public about this meeting. It was almost as if they had made previous commitments either to Uniroyal/Chemtura or the M.O.E. that they would back off of the DNAPL file despite the 2003 CPAC Request For Action. This reminded me of Sylvia Berg asking me alone to sign APTs critique of the M.O.E. December 10, 1993 letter accepting Uniroyal's DNAPL position despite the fact that both she and Glenys McMullen were involved in that critique with me. Both scenarios were and are bizarre and have often led me to suspect the worst.

Was the Ammonia Treatment System (ATS) Certificate of Approval merely a red herring by Pat and Susan to get me off of CPAC? At the time I found their (ATS) position ridiculous especially after I had Wilf Ruland in my home and showed him my groundwater data and borehole logs indicating that CH97 was totally inappropriate to be one of the "well pairs". Wilf had absolutely no dispute with my data and its' interpretation. I could tell that he was trying not to be over enthusiastic about my discovery but I repeat he had zero objections or disagreement with the facts presented to him. Then after I filed my appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal I willingly agreed to a sitdown with Chemtura, CRA (Conestoga Rovers) and the Ontario M.O.E. to see if a meeting of the minds could occur. The meeting was a sham and absolutely not in good faith by the other three parties. Wilf presented my information regarding CH97 being an inappropriate well to use as a "well pair" because the screen of the well was drawing both Municipal Aquifer (MU) water as well as Upper Aquifer water into it. There was no aquitard between the two aquifers. This would artificially raise the groundwater level in the MU thus incorrectly "proving" that there was hydraulic containment on site because just off-site well (CH97) had a higher groundwater reading in the MU than the corresponding on site well.

Wilf tried I'll give him that. CRA simply ignored his facts. They arrogantly as always advised him and us that they were right. There wasn't even so much as a hint that Wilf's (ie. mine) points had any merit whatsoever. Wilf shut up. I did not. I bluntly as is my way when dealing with arrogant liars told them off. I advised that my appeal would be immediately reinstated the next day and that I didn't appreciate having my time wasted by parties with zero intent to either listen or respond factually to our position. Whether in agreement or disagreement they said no with absolutely zero technical reasons why they were allegedly right and we were allegedly wrong.

This is the background for Wilf's further plunging of Pat and Susan's knife into my back. Wilf then went to CPAC and advised them that he will no longer work for CPAC as long as I am a member. Wilf claimed that my "behaviour" at this meeting attended by Dr. Henry Regier, Wilf, Pat , Susan, CRA, Chemtura and the M.O.E. was objectionable. Apparently unlike Wilf I am not deferential enough when being lied to by intellectual prostitutes. Unlike Wilf I will not be treated disrespectfully and accept it just because the speaker has more credentials than I. Unlike Wilf I will not kiss the asses of powerful people hoping for future contracts from the M.O.E. and or collaborative, paid private meetings with CRA and Chemtura. Furthermore Wilf apparently viewed Pat and Susan as part of his future paid consulting. I strongly advise Wilf Ruland to stay the hell out of Elmira in the future. His behaviour is beneath contempt.