WILF RULAND, HYDROGEOLOGIST & MAN ABOUT TOWN

His start was auspicious here in Elmira. APT invited him to comment on groundwater issues after the Elmira Water Crisis started in November 1989. He was a self proclaimed consultant for "citizens" groups. Surprisingly to me he was paid briefly (?) by the Ontario Ministry of Environment to give a Hydrogeology 101 course to Sylvia Berg, Susan Bryant and myself.

Wilf very early on was extremely careful not to offend. He was particularly careful not to offend Uniroyal Chemical, their consultants (CRA & Morrison-Beatty) and the Ontario M.O.E.. In those days that was not easy to do because it almost seemed on a daily basis that we were discovering deceptions and lies from those three groups.

Over the years from 1990 until 2007 Wilf's role changed. Initially he was strictly about groundwater and contaminant flow. His Terms of Reference were never made clear despite Dr. Henry Regier repeatedly asking for specifics. Specifics such as how much he was paid and by whom. CPAC Chair, Pat McLean, did obtain some funding from Woolwich Council for Wilf's work in reviewing a few Crompton/Conestoga Rovers reports. I believe that early on APT paid him money for his expertise which was appropriate. What happened later on however was not appropriate as in money is the root of all evil type of inappropriate.

Wilf would be called in on occasion by either Pat or Susan. Often we wouldn't see Wilf for a period of two or three years and then he would be there giving his opinion on this or that issue, strategy or proposal by Uniroyal/Crompton. It was not inaccurate to suggest that he was parachuted in for specific issues. Time and time again I would see and hear him at a CPAC meeting politely and deferentially suggest that a Conestoga Rovers (CRA) report may have missed this point or that fact and hence their Conclusions needed an adjustment. Time and time again CRA would respond by thanking Wilf for his input but that no he was wrong, they were right and the matter was settled. Never did I see Wilf confront them. Never did I see Wilf put his foot down after a typical exhibition of CRA's arrogance. Henry and I while appreciating Wilf's technical expertise were often disappointed with his lack of firmness and resolve in the face of Uniroyal/Crompton and CRA intransigence.

It became more apparent over time that Wilf was not so much representing CPAC as he was representing those that either paid him or through whom he got paid. That would be Pat and Susan. The most glaring example was in regards to DNAPLS (dense non-aqueous phase liquids). While privately he would agree that CRA had not proven their case that only residual DNAPL remained on site versus Free Phase DNAPLS; again he seemed reluctant to ever press this point at public CPAC meetings. Also Wilf became more critical of those who exhibited a style somewhat blunter and more direct than his. Wilf was a hired consultant, no more and no less. He was supposed to be representing me as a voting CPAC member not projecting his never offend/never confront style upon his clients of which ostensibly I was one.

It got much worse with Wilf as a consultant actually directly involving himself in a disagreement of members within CPAC. I have no doubt that he was invited or induced to do so by those who had brought him to the party and were paying his wages. It was a gross conflict of interest for him to attempt to influence the internal CPAC decision between Pat, Susan and myself over the Ammonia Treatment System Certificate of Approval; but he did so nevertheless to his shame. I have often wondered since with his extremely limited appearances in the last decade whether or not he finally realized how inappropriate his behaviour and input was on that matter.

There will be more specifics on this matter in tomorrow's posting.