Monday, April 30, 2018


The July 20, 2006 K-W Record carried the following story titled "Fire at Crompton". It mentioned the fire of the previous evening that broke out at a building on the Crompton site. Residents returning to town were directed to a staging area at the price Choppers on Arthur St. until officials were certain that it was safe to enter the area. Also the residents of Pilgrim's Provident Retirement Home were evacuated by Grand River buses.

Ron Ormson of the Crompton Public Advisory Committee sent a Letter To The Editor of the Elmira Independent asking why the Community Alert Network (CAN) telephone warning system had not been activated. He also advised that this latest fire and explosion comes much too soon after the last major fire and explosion in June 2004 when a wastewater tank exploded. Ron felt that Woolwich township officials had failed to activate the warning system on a timely basis. There had also been a small fire in March of that year (2006).

"Several residents from the homes being cleaned up in Cambridge attended the monthly CPAC meeting...." The topic of the CPAC meeting was DNAPLS (Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids) and in Cambridge the authorities are using a system called ISCO or In-Situ Chemical Oxidation. I asked why it wasn't being used in Elmira at this 2006 meeting and received varying responses. ironically ISCO is now and for the last few years on both the company's and the Ministry of Environment's radar for use on our contaminated aquifers.

Both Wilf Ruland and Jaimie Connolly of the M.O.E. spoke to the longterm nature of the DNAPL issue at the Crompton site. They also suggested that further on-site source removal of DNAPLS was likely necessary for improvement. Hydraulic containment alone would not do the job. Surprise, surprise to this date the vast majority of those sub-surface DNAPLS are still on-site and slowly dissolving into the groundwater. Some areas in the south-west corner are mostly contained whereas the shallow DNAPLS in the rest of the site are not. This includes the whole east side where DNAPL contaminated shallow groundwater continues to flow off-site.

The last item of note refers to an Elmira Independent opinion titled "The hidden danger of microwaves" written by Chuck Keupfer on May 4, 2007. Chuck talks about Diacetyl long manufactured here in Elmira and how it has produced "popcorn lung". Shortly after lawsuits and more started south of the border, Crompton suddenly ceased production here in Elmira. The odour of this butter flavouring could often be smelled around town and folks thought that it was not harmful. They were wrong as it has caused severe and irreversible lung damage in workers using the chemical. Just one more case of "Better living through Chemistry" apparently.

Saturday, April 28, 2018


It's taken a relatively short while to take the measure of Lanxess. The public and public interest have never been served by any of Lanxess's predecessors nor is it being remotely served now. True a corporation exists to serve it's shareholders allegedly. Or at least it's supposed to. I suppose sometimes it actually serves it's management team or its' majority shareholders versus all its' shareholders. Such is the human condition when most people have power or authority. They abuse it.

Corporations however are supposed to be working within the confines of the laws of the land. Laws that are sometimes more about appearance than substance however have been bent, distorted and ultimately broken by Uniroyal Chemical, Crompton, Chemtura and now it appears Lanxess. Again it's all about abuse of power. They've got it and money in spades and they seem intent on exercising it for their benefit and subsequently to the detriment of the public. Keep in mind they came into the purchase of Chemtura with their eyes wide open. Besides doing their normal due diligence regarding Chemtura, they were also on my Blog, the Elmira Advocate, reading about Chemtura prior to the finalization of their purchase.

Two k-W residents have been working on a Documentary about the Elmira Crisis for at least the last five years. Their Documentary is complete albeit it has both a longer and a shorter version. I have viewed them and have a preference for one over the other. Bonita Wagler and Michael Heitmann have sunk a big piece of their lives into this effort and they have made a concerted attempt to present both sides of the story. Some in the community, including me on occasion, do not much care for giving what I view as professional liars further opportunities to do just that. In order however for them to include commentary, opinions and responses of Chemtura, the M.O.E. and other fellow travellors and co-opted individuals; Michael and Bonita had to promise a balanced approach, a fair to all sides approach. They did that.

Now after purchasing Chemtura, Lanxess have rescinded their approval of the participation of Jeff Merriman, Chemtura's consumate mouthpiece and environmental engineer. Frankly I thought that Jeff had too much time and input in the Documentary. He gives the company far more credibility as well as excuses than they deserve. Nevertheless Lanxess are flexing their muscles and are inhibiting the presentation of this Documentary to the public. They are using their power and influence inappropriately and once again the public are the losers. Good to know exactly what kind of a company we are again having to deal with here in Elmira.

I suspect that Lanxess have but two possible opinions regarding the likelihood that the Stroh Drain area is a "sink" for Persistent Organic Pollutants such as Dioxins, DDT, PCBs and much more. One opinion is that they know very well in their hearts and minds that the area is an environmental disaster slowly and inexorably releasing and transporting these toxic compounds into the air, ground and surface water, soils and sediments further downstream. They know that both human beings as well as wildlife from above ground predators to lowly benthic communities within the creek itself have and are suffering because of the contamination. Their motivation for lying about it is simple money and not spending huge sums of it for the public good rather than for their own.

The second opinion is that due to their own soil and more testing which they've kept to themselves, they know full well that their liquid wastes did not flow into this low lying area. I do not know how that is possible but what I do know is that consecutive reincarnations of this company have all lied to the public about their site and its' contaminants. Therefore I have to ask if Lanxess or Chemtura have serious knowledge or evidence that their liquid wastes have not been carried either intentionally or unintentionally onto the Stroh property in bulk then why haven't they produced this credible evidence? To date they've given us unsubstantiated words and opinions. Frankly most of their "explanations" have been obvious hot air. Are they so petty that they'd rather not produce honest evidence that would clear them of the allegations of intentional dumping and diversion of toxic liquid wastes onto their neighbour's property? In other words do they feel so unaccountable to the public and the law that they are actually sticking their middle fingers up in the air and saying "Make me!"? Are they actually revelling in their lack of need to defend themselves and their apparent abhorrent behaviour? Perhaps their confidence is at least partially based upon having the Ontario Ministry of Environment grovelling at their feet.

Friday, April 27, 2018


Yesterday afternoon in Woolwich Council Chambers yet again democracy was perverted and our local world class polluter lied and manipulated to avoid having to investigate and clean up the Stroh Drain. It's also all about hit and run public meetings now with RAC and TAG. No longer are TAG meetings every month or two. The last RAC meetings were in March and April of this year preceded by last September (2017) with the next one scheduled for this September (2018). TAG's next meeting is tentatively scheduled for next October unless bodies can be convinced to come out in the summer (July or August). This is a contemptible disgrace. This is on Sandy Shantz and Mark Bauman and their attack on and removal of CPAC members in 2015 to be replaced by their "cringeworthy" creations of RAC and TAG. Even with many good members on TAG, reducing their meetings like this will kill their ability to even attempt to hold Lanxess accountable through RAC which is a complete joke. Again no sign of the Region of Waterloo's presence at yesterday's RAC meeting. They know a phony committee when they see one.

Two local attendees spoke out against Lanxess running and hiding from testing the Stroh Drain area. That was Mark Bauman privately at the end of the meeting to me and Sebastian and Susan Bryant publicly asking Ramin Ansari of Lanxess whether Lanxess would test the Stroh Drain sediments or soils. Ramin said no they would not. His excuse was the Mickey Mouse surficial (15 cm/6 inches) soil testing up along the Lanxess/Stroh border which allegedly had its' concentrations decrease sharply as the sampling moved a few metres eastwards. Furthermore the grand total of two samples again allegedly were below the criteria for DDT and Dioxins in the "Gap" area. A liar is a liar and a manipulator/deceiver will always find a way to do just that. A lack of ethics and honesty as demonstrated for decades by the partners in pollution has made me no longer even have faith in the honesty of their sampling. Afterall when another immoral and unethical party is the "witness" to their sampling, what does that prove?

Speaking of an immoral and unethical party, the Ontario Ministry of Environment rolled over yet again. We were advised by Sebastian that the Ontario M.O.E. sent out a letter earlier this month telling Lanxess that they needed to do soil sampling around the Stroh Drain. Yesterday afternoon Jason Rice of the M.O.E. reversed that position. Yes he said the M.O.E. would accept Lanxess's non testing. Keep in mind that at the last RAC meeting Mark Bauman did publicly tell Lanxess that he the RAC co-chair felt that this testing was necessary to put concerns to rest that this Drain could be transporting DDT and Dioxins into the Canagagigue Creek. While his logic is suspect it could possibly be interpreted as being a diplomatic way of getting Lanxess to do the right thing.

We have had three and a half years of intentional delay after the devastating exposure of Uniroyal/CRA/M.O.E. lying about the east side of the site and the flow of toxic contaminants onto the Stroh farm. The foxes in charge of the henhouse designed a Work Plan that suited their intention never to find out the truth about the Stroh Drain. They manipulated and orchestrated the removal of CPAC from their positions of Woolwich representatives in the cleanup. This was achieved through the efforts of Sandy Shantz and Mark Bauman. Allegedly Mark is retiring and not running again for council. Thank God as he is a manipulator of the first order. We at CPAC call him Mr. Flip Flop. Maybe he's for real regarding his expressed desire for Stroh Drain testing but more likely he is posturing simply to insulate his environmental credentials and his reputation after he leaves council. Good riddance to bad rubbish. The same goes for Susan Bryant. Hot and cold. Yesterday she seemed interested in testing the Stroh Drain. Previous meetings she wanted to get on with the superficial cleanup along the Stroh property line. Superficial cleanups are the specialty of this company and their fellow travellors.

Thursday, April 26, 2018


The Remediation Advisory Committee meets this afternoon at 4 pm. in Woolwich Council Chambers. The 4 pm. time is very helpful in reducing the attendance of members of the public. After all it's during business hours. This is likely intentional. That said attendance is also diminished by the lack of media being present. In the good old days the Elmira Independent attended and reported on all UPAC (Uniroyal Public Advisory Committee) and CPAC public meetings. Kudos to the Independent (& Gail Martin) for their decades of public service. When the media doesn't report on these public meetings it sends the wrong message namely that they aren't important. When we have the most prolific polluter in Ontario (Chemtura/Lanxess) and their far too chummy regulator (MOECC) present together, along with the Grand River Conservation Authority, the Region of Waterloo, Woolwich Township etc.; it behooves local citizens to come out and learn. In fact one of the many things citizens could learn is how public consultation is not achieved. These august (in their own minds ) bodies will not accept questions from the unwashed masses. Oh no they like to pretend that only QPs need raise their voices in order to ask questions. QPs stands for Qualified Pricks I believe. Afterall if Sandy and her ilk can make up acronyms then so can I.

This afternoon's meeting will also have a couple of TAG members present plus the TAG (Technical Advisory Group) Chair, Tiffany Svensson. This is a good thing as TAG have been sending some good messages and recommendations to RAC. These include that soil testing still needs to be done in the area of the Stroh Drain as well as more in the area of the "Gap". TAG also have advised that the last couple of creek Bio-Monitoring results were inadequate due to cages of critters (leeches & clams) being washed downstream. TAG have also indicated support for a Sediment Transport Investigation being done. Finally TAG are awaiting a response from GHD/Lanxess as to why Table 2 criteria versus Table 8 (within 30 metres of a waterbody) criteria were not used. The Table 8 criteria is 7 parts per trillion (ppt) and the one sample in the Gap area was at 6.97 ppt.

Yours truly will be a Delegation to RAC and will speak in regards to the recent 2017 Canagagigue Creek Soils & Sediment Report. The public get to speak to them only (not TAG) whenever they meet which used to be four times/year but has been less recently.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018


Two samples does not a major investigation make. It doesn't even make a minor investigation. It is a typical example of past CRA junk science. It is how credentialed, ethically challenged, well paid human beings manipulate science for self-serving purposes. These were two composite soil samples spread over a large area. Even then both DDT and Dioxins/Furans were detected. Exactly how easy is it to fudge a composite soil sample? Allegedly they were taking these samples in a low lying area which likely served as the pathway for hundreds of thousands of gallons of Uniroyal's liquid wastes which were produced day in and day out. A major portion of sampling location SS20 is located on the high ground which is a wide diagonal swath of ground oriented in a north-west to south-east position. Liquids generally do not run uphill if they have an alternative. It is also likely that the solvent soaked liquid wastes penetrated into the lowlying ground and took the DDT compounds and Dioxins/Furans with them.

These ongoing discharges from Uniroyal's east side ponds ended a long time ago. More than four decades of weathering of surface soils has occurred. This includes wind, sun, rain, snow and literally major floods. This area other than the previously mentioned high diagonal stretch of ground is in the Floodplain of the Canagagigue Creek. How much of these surface DDTs and Dioxins have been transported either into the Stroh Drain or directly overland via major flood and back into the Canagagigue Creek? How much have penetrated deeply and are between one foot and ten feet below the ground surface? We do not know because the corrupt partners in pollution refuse to properly investigate. They are and always have abused the public trust and interest by being the foxes in charge of the hen house. The Ontario Ministry of Environment give them the veneer of respectability, of credibility, of honesty. At least that is among the woefully uninformed, the woefully ignorant, the most naive and finally amongst the most corrupt.

Some TAG members have suggested that the theory of flow being solely from west on the Chemtura/Lanxess site directly east onto the Stroh property is just that, a theory. It is just as likely that flow was from north-west to south-east across the property line. Or it could have been from west to east further north and then turned and flowed primarily southwards on the Stroh property. With the Stroh Drain running initially from north to south parallel to the Lanxess property line this seems like a strong possibility.

Even with composite soil samples averaging out the highest concentrations discovered, the TEQ or Toxic Equivalency of Dioxins/Furans was 6.97 from SS21 just north of SS20 and in the "Gap" area. The term "Gap" was coined as the area which GHD initially and intentionally avoided in their on-site soil sampling back in 2015. We had advised them repeatedly of our concerns in that area yet they still magically "forgot" to sample there while sampling both north and south of the area. To this day they have refused to sample in and around the Stroh Drain on the Stroh property which runs parallel to and within 20 metres of their property.

The 6.97 mathematically derived number is interesting. The criteria for Dioxins/Furans in soils is 13 parts per trillion (ppt). That is unless the soils are within 30 metres of a waterway. Enter the Stroh Drain. That puts the criteria in the "Gap" area as 7 ppt. not 13 ppt.. Keep in mind that the 6.97 number is a number of different soil samples mixed together and then tested. To end up at 6.97 means that some of these soils were below that number and others were ABOVE it! Also keep in mind that these were surface samples after decades of weathering and transport.

Lanxess, GHD and the Ontario M.O.E. are once again involved in a coverup. The Stroh Drain, the likely relocation of GP1 and the possible Interceptor Trench from the Lanxess site onto the Stroh property speak to out and out corruption. The refusal of all three parties to honestly, forthrightly and transparently do an honest investigation only reinforces these beliefs and suspicions.

Tuesday, April 24, 2018


Today's on-line Waterloo Region Record carries the following story titled "Tax rebate to fund $8.6 M cleanup of former Kitchener Frame site". This story is a feel good story telling we citizens about a joint municipal-regional program that encourages both local development as well as remediation of contaminated sites. If a developer is willing to fund an up front cleanup of a contaminated site prior to redeveloping it for another use then the municipality and the Region will forgo the annual much higher taxes on the redeveloped property until the developer can recoup his out of pocket cleanup costs. On the face of it this is a win-win. The environment wins a cleanup and the city and Region eventually win more revenue. So what's the problem?

First off we are allegedly in a provincial jurisdiction that requires polluters (who've been caught) to pay for their damage to the natural environment. Remarkably one exception is if their contamination hasn't left their property. That is joke number one. You can't discharge solvents for example onto bare ground without some of them being volatilized and escaping the property as fumes to further pollute our already toxic air. Secondly as Dr. Gail Krantzberg advised CPAC nearly six years ago, a large amount of everything that Uniroyal spilled or dumped on their property eventually was transported either into the air, the groundwater or surface water where it escaped off-site.

Clearly this program rewards polluters who have managed to either sell or abandon their contaminated properties prior to being caught. Why isn't Budd, ThyssenKrupp or Kitchener Frame paying for this cleanup? The same goes for the former Deilcraft (Electrohome) site on Shanley St. in Kitchener. The list goes on.

Up here in Elmira we the taxpayers are still paying every year for 50% of the cleanup of the Elmira Aquifers courtesy of Uniroyal Chemical. The old Varnicolor Chemical site in Elmira was only partially remediated back in the mid 90s before being sold by Phillips Environmental. Initially the Ontario Ministry of Environment had insisted on a full cleanup of the site prior to Phillips buying it. Of course this was when the media and the public were breathing down the Ministry's neck. The owner after Phillips has been stuck managing and maintaining a pump and treat system and more for over fifteen years without the end in sight. Clearly the rules are far more subjective than objective.

The bottom line is this. Private citizens and taxpayers should not be paying to clean up messes caused by irresponsible or negligent companies. Most pollution is all about money. If a company can save money by holding their noses and looking the other way they will as long as the Ontario M.O.E.'s monitoring and enforcement are so perfunctory. These same irresponsible companies will do their best to externalize costs onto the backs of both taxpayers and the natural environment as long as they are allowed to get away with it. Unfortunately our major political parties are too deeply entrenched in bed with their corporate backers to actually put teeth into environmental legislation without including loopholes for these bad actors to avoid their responsibilities. For our past provincial Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments it's all about pretending to make Polluters Pay. Right now it's you and me paying for the negligence, often intentional, of major corporate polluters.

Monday, April 23, 2018


The road ahead means going back to the past. Last Thursday TAG (Technical Advisory Group) members spoke clearly about source removal of DDT & Dioxin on the Lanxess property. The studies of the sediments and soils in and around the creek over the last six years have proven that DDT and its' metabolytes (DDD & DDE) along with Dioxins/Furans are still entering the Canagagigue Creek in Elmira, Ontario. With "normal" spring floods combined with more severe rainstorms throughout the year it has become even more obvious that these toxic chemicals are being "refreshed" on an ongoing basis. The scouring of the sediments in the bottom of the creek by the incredible hydraulic forces involved in a flood, transport soils, sands and gravel downstream along with the hydrophobic compounds attached to them.

There is but one ultimate source of these and so many other compounds and that is the former Uniroyal Chemical site now known as Lanxess. There have been attempts in the past to remediate/remove source areas along the creek on the Lanxess property. These occurred in the very early 2000s and culminated in 2005-2006 with the removal of part of a small island beside Uniroyal's south-west corner. Clearly the job is far from done. There are many other locations on the Lanxess property that citizen scientists as well as honest professionals have researched and found to be grossly contaminated. They were ignored by the good folks in charge of the clean up. That would be the Ministry of Errors and Corporate Collusion (MOECC) and their client Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura and now Lanxess.

There are also source zones off the Lanxess property which Lanxess/GHD/MOECC are doing their best to ignore. CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) took it to them in 2014 with both we citizen scientists as well as professionals in the field agreeing that a proper investigation was required on the Stroh property in and around the Stroh Drain. The partners in pollution did their best pretend investigation of the East Side from 2015-2018. They studiously and repeatedly avoided sampling where they were most likely to find problems. They studiously avoided consulting with the citizen scientists and professionals on CPAC who did the initial research and pointed MTE Consulting in the right direction. They are doing their usual end run around the facts and around the truth. This folks is corruption plain and simple and they are being protected by the MOECC. Local politicians are also running interference for them as usual.

Saturday, April 21, 2018


Once trust and confidence is lost due to a major betrayal, deception or dishonesty it is rarely restored. This is true in almost all aspects of human endeavour. It absolutely does not refer to an honest disagreement, misinterpretation of facts or even believing a lie told to you by a third party.

Last Thursday's TAG meeting was very worthwhile. All of them are regardless of whether or not anything major was accomplished. It is the sharing of information that is always helpful in the long run.

Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach asked whether any testing for DDT compounds and Dioxins had been done in the Grand River sediments or creekbank soils. The answer by the GHD rep was to his knowledge, no. Obviously all the years of excessive results the length of the Canagagigue Creek makes it obvious that these toxic compounds have been entering the Grand River for many decades. Likely that will continue. Thankyou Uniroyal, Crompton, Chemtura and now Lanxess.

Susan mentioned that the presence of DDT itself above and beyond the presence of its' breakdown products, DDD and DDE, would indicate that there is a fresh source of DDT still entering the Canagagigue Creek. Pat as well stated that she believes that there are ongoing sources of DDT still entering the creek.

Joe Kelly of TAG expressed similar thoughts. He stated that with all these flood events the contaminants should have all been rinsed out of the creek long ago. Tiffany Svensson, TAG Chair, also flatly stated that there has to be an ongoing source of Dioxins & DDT still getting into the creek.

Lastly Sebastian asked the question of timelines that we've all been asking on every issue for the last thirty years. This was in regards to other ongoing remediation such as the off-site pump & treat system for the Elmira Aquifers. It has been a disaster to date with much ado about nothing. For each new well up and pumping more hot air than water there's been an older well either cut back or temporarily shut down for maintenance, repairs etc.. What a scam!

Friday, April 20, 2018


It started badly. Very badly. Three out of seven TAG members plus the Chair Tiffany Svensson were there at 6:30 pm.. Not even enough for a quorum for God's sake. I was not a happy camper. This Report is one of the most important and comprehensive investigations of Canagagigue Creek and the flow of Uniroyal Chemical toxic compounds off-site and into the natural environment ever. And four out of seven TAG members weren't there. The Chair gave us excuses for two of the missing. I did not hear anything about a third. Then at 7 pm., thirty minutes after the scheduled start of the meeting, Pat Mclean showed up. TAG had a quorum.

It got better. A gentleman from GHD was in attendance to give us a presentation about the Creek report. He was very good with a couple of minor exceptions. For example he advised that pg/g was the same as parts per billion (ppb). That is incorrect. He clarified as to how overbank deposits occur if there is a lot of sediment transport in a creek. He described multiple channels in the creek in the area of the cedar forests. He used the term "braided" which I believe again describes multiple channels. He advised that the last couple of big floods namely this spring and particularly last June would have scoured the bottom of the creek of sediments. Currently the bottom of the creek is lined with heavier gravels and cobbles. When asked he confirmed that the current major sampling locations had been provided to GHD by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (M.O.E.).

The gentleman from GHD described overall impressions of DDT and Dioxin/Furan concentrations not being correlated with particle size although they were somewhat with depth (higher). He referred to the contaminant concentrations being highly variable including sediment samples taken across the same transects of the creek. He advised that this report primarily was data collection and that GHD were currently drilling deeper and asking the bigger questions such as how much of the sediments are regularly moving downstream. Should there be a Sediment Transport study? The lack of this by the way was a major criticism of Dr. Richard Jackson, TAG's first Chair.

All four TAG members asked good questions and made comments. Susan Bryant came right out and asked if there was a sampling bias in regards to most of the same locations being sampled as in previous reports. The GHD person again stated that the locations had been laid out by the M.O.E.. He reiterated that there was huge variability in results even just two feet apart and that yes there was a locational sampling bias although it might be "a waste of resources" to do other sites.

Sebastian again raised the "scouring" effect of floods on the creek and as to whether there should be further sampling at further downstream locations due to the substantial transport of sediments.

By this time in my handwritten notes I was asking myself the $64,000 question. If there is this ongoing "scouring" of creek bottom sediments then where is the new DDT, DDE, DDD, Dioxins/Furans and so much more still coming from? TAG members began asking that same question. "What is going on?" "Where are the ongoing sources to the creek?" Paul Farquarson, the GHD guy, stated that "this data set doesn't provide that.". Susan Bryant gave some history of the partial cleanup of DDT piles in the north-west corner of the site back in the 1990s. UPAC (Uniroyal Public Advisory Committee) and their Soil & Water sub-committee strongly objected to the partial cleanup only of DDT at the time. This committee consisted of myself, Dr. Henry Regier, Fred Hager and Susan.

What Susan forgot to mention last evening was other major refusals and ignoring of CPAC formal Motions for on-site cleanup. This particularly included the July 2003 Request For Action produced by the Soil & Water sub-committee and passed unanimously by CPAC (Crompton Public Advisory Committee). Yours truly did the bulk of the research and digging to determine exactly where buried wastes still existed on the Uniroyal/Crompton site. DDT was particularly mentioned in RPW 1 & 2 in the north-west as well as in P1 on the west side just below the small dam. DDT was found in clay samples at an astounding 461,000 parts per billion and was NOT removed. Unsurprisingly Uniroyal/Crompton/Conestoga Rovers intransigence is coming home to roost. All of them as well as the M.O.E. denied, denied and denied. Then they delayed, delayed and delayed and here we are fifteen years later wondering where the hell the DDT and Dioxins are coming from.

Oh stupid people in charge of the clean up! While Susan, Pat, Joe and Sebastian all did good work last evening they also forgot one other possible huge source of DDT and Dioxins to the creek. That would be the STROH DRAIN! Don't look for any traction on this matter from Pat & Susan because neither can hitch their stars to this effort. That rules it out for them because it is 100% a CPAC effort when they weren't on CPAC.

The recently released and discussed, without proper PUBLIC consultation, East Side Investigation utterly failed to sample in and around the Stroh Drain. Excuses were made as to why a years belated, two samples only, on the Chemtura/Lanxess property was adequate to determine if these Contaminants did or did not exist in the bottom of the Drain as well as in the surrounding soils. This Drain by-passed the Uniroyal property and took both contaminated groundwater and surface water south-east and back into the Canagagigue Creek. With luck and good professional help (ie. lying) Lanxess can delay any major expenditures for either on-site cleanup or Stroh Drain clean up for another fifteen years with never ending, one small area at a time, soil sampling. Meanwhile both the creek and human beings will suffer the toxic consequences while our local politicians and provincial regulators (M.O.E.) mouth platitudes and self-congratulatory praise.

Thursday, April 19, 2018


The main Agenda Item for discussion this evening will be the 2017 Canagagigue Creek Sediments & Soils Investigation. It is not clear from the Agenda as to whether Lanxess/GHD or the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) will attend either to present or to answer questions from TAG members. Of course even if they are there to answer questions, they will not respond to questions from the general public much less from those of us who have spent close to three decades volunteering on behalf of Woolwich Township residents. Nor will they answer questions from the public such as myself who has so obviously studied this report in detail as evidenced by the last two weeks plus of posts here in the Elmira Advocate. This evisceration of public consultation will come back to haunt this Council, Lanxess and the M.O.E.. That is a promise.

Having reviewed yesterday's posting I'm going to partially respond to my own question about the significance of the exceedances by chemical and by location in yesterday's posting. Firstly both Dioxins/Furans and DDE were tied for twice having the largest percentage of criteria exceedances at each location. Secondly generally but not always Sediment samples had fewer exceedances as a percentage of total samples tested than Soil samples. Thirdly Dioxins/Furans exceedances as a percentage of samples tested in Sediment samples were very high at four of the five locations. Overall Sediment sample exceedances appeared muted versus Soil sample exceedances likely due to the Detection Limit for DDT, DDE & DDD being higher than the criteria for those chemicals in Sediments only.

I have since yesterday also looked at the highest concentrations at the five locations for creek sediments and creekbank soils as well as the one Figure (6.11) for Flood Plain Soils. The very highest total DDT concentration is 399,300 parts per billion (ppb) found in a Soil sample at New Jerusalem Rd. The second highest was 272,000 ppb found on the Lanxess property also found in a Soil sample.The third highest DDT concentration (38,520 ppb) was found in a Downstream Station 20 Soil sample. There is a definite pattern there. These are stunning concentrations which incredibly exceed any found in the last six years in and around the creek.

Dioxins/Furans have a different pattern. The top two concentrations were found in creek sediments namely 1,090 parts per trillion (ppt) at Station 21 and 285 ppt found on the Lanxess property. The third highest (242 ppt) was found in creekbank soils at the New Jerusalem site. These values are also higher than any found in and around the creek over the last six years of sampling. It certainly appears as the more sampling is done the higher the detections become. This may explain the huge miles long gaps in sampling Sediments and Creekbank Soils downstream from the Uniroyal/Lanxess property. You don't find that which you refuse to test for.

We will see this evening whether the TAG members are up to the challenge. The challenge is in reading and understanding this huge report. It is poorly written and organized. The data is very worthwhile albeit almost overwhelming. I expect maybe two TAG members only will carry the ball but hope to be pleasantly surprised otherwise.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018


Yesterday's post gave the individual numbers of criteria exceedances for DDT, DDE, DDD, Dioxins/Furans in both Creekbank Soils and Creek bottom Sediments at five locations in Canagagigue Creek. It also gave the percentage exceedances of these five parameters combined for each location. Today we are going to further break down the numbers. We will see the percentages of criteria exceedances Per Toxic Chemical at each location.

Northfield Drive

Soils********* 6 exceedances of DDT out of 24 samples equals 25%

Sediments***** 1 exceedances of DDT " " 31 samples equals 3%

Soils********* 5 exceedances of DDE " " 24 samples equals 21%

Sediments***** 0 exceedances of DDE `` `` 31 samples equals 0%

Soils********* 4 exceedances of DDD " " 24 samples equals 17%

Sediments***** 0 exceedances of DDD `` `` 31 samples equals 0%

Soils********* 7 exceedances of Dioxins/F " " 24 samples equals 29% " D/F

Sediments***** 16 exceedances of Dioxins/F " " 31 samples equals 52% " D/F

New Jerusalem Rd.

Soils******** 22 exceedances of DDT out of 48 samples equals 46%

Sediments***** 9 exceedances of DDT " " 343 samples equals 3%

Soils******** 30 exceedances of DDE " " 48 samples equals 62%

Sediments**** 16 exceedances of DDE " " 343 samples equals 5%

Soils******** 18 exceedances of DDD " " 48 samples equals 37%

Sediments**** 12 exceedances of DDD " " 343 samples equals 3.5%

Soils******** 18 exceedances of Dioxins/F " 48 samples equals 37%

Sediments**** 48 exceedances of Dioxins/F " 343 samples equals 14%

Station 21

Soils******** 20 exceedances of DDT out of 36 samples equals 56%

Sediments**** 19 exceedances of DDT " " 70 samples equals 27%

Soils******** 24 exceedances of DDE " " 36 samples equals 67%

Sediments**** 22 exceedances of DDE " " 70 samples equals 31%

Soils******** 10 exceedances of DDD " " 36 samples equals 28%

Sediments**** 15 exceedances of DDD " " 70 samples equals 21%

Soils******** 21 exceedances of Dioxins/F " 36 samples equals 58%

Sediments**** 37 exceedances of Dioxins/F " 70 samples equals 53%

Downstream of Station 20

Soils******** 28 exceedances of DDT out of 48 samples equals 58%

Sediments**** 24 exceedances of DDT " " 91 samples equals 26%

Soils******** 36 exceedances of DDE " " 48 samples equals 75%

Sediments**** 25 exceedances of DDE " " 91 samples equals 27%

Soils******** 24 exceedances of DDD " " 48 samples equals 50%

Sediments**** 35 exceedances of DDD " " 91 samples equals 38%

Soils******** 27 exceedances of DioxinsF `` 48 samples equals 9%

Sediments**** 54 exceedances of DioxinsF `` 91 samples equals 59%

Lanxess Site

Soil********* 13 exceedances of DDT out of 72 samples equals 18%

Sediments**** 13 exceedances of DDT `` `` 43 samples equals 30%

Soils******** 15 exceedances of DDE `` `` 72 samples equals 21%

Sediments***** 9 exceedances of DDE `` `` 43 samples equals 21%

Soils******** 14 exceedances of DDD `` `` 72 samples equals 19%

Sediments**** 14 exceedances of DDD `` `` 43 samples equals 32%

Soils******** 27 exceedances of DioxinsF `` 72 samples equals 37%

Sediments**** 24 exceedances of DioxinsF `` 43 samples equals 56%

For the moment I will leave it up to the reader and see if you can see the significance in some of these exceedances of criteria by specific chemicals at specific locations.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018


To date I've been talking about the number of total detections of DDT, DDE, DDD and Dioxins/Furans above the criteria in creekbank Soils and the much lower criteria which have been exceeded in Sediments in the bottom of the creek. Today we are going to examine the actual exceedances of the Ontario Ministry of Environment's Table 8 criteria by specific chemical. That is however only the chemicals that Lanxess/M.O.E. have designated as Contaminants of Concern (COC). There are many more unmeasured in this report, toxic chemicals in the creek.

The 22 exceedances of criteria in creekbank Soils in the Northfield Dr. area consist of six for 2,4 + 4,4 DDT, five for 2,4 + 4,4 DDE, and four for 2,4 + 4,4 DDD. There were seven exceedances for Dioxins/Furans measured as the TEQ (toxic equivalency) exceeding 7 parts per trillion (ppt). These 2,4 + 4,4 designations are the total of the different breakdown products of DDT (ie. DDD, DDE) as well as the total of DDT itself. In the upcoming paragraphs I will simply state the exceedances for DDT, DDE and DDD thusly rather than continue the 2,4 & 4,4 designations. There were a grand total of 96 soil samples analysed. Therefore 23% of samples analysed exceeded the criteria.

There were 17 exceedances in creek Sediments of which one was for DDT and the other 16 for Dioxins/F. Therefore 18% of the 96 samples analysed exceeded the specific criteria for each contaminant.

Next upstream was the New Jerusalem Rd. location (ie. east side of the road). There were 88 Soil exceedances of which 22 were for DDT, 30 for DDE and 18 for DDD. Dioxin/F concentrations exceeded the criteria 18 times. Thus of the total of 192 samples, 46% exceeded the criteria.

There were 85 Sediment exceedances at the New Jerusalem Rd. location. Nine were for DDT, 16 for DDE and 12 for DDD. There were 48 exceedances for Dioxins/F. Thus 6% of the total number of 1,372 Sediment samples had exceedances.

At Station 21 just barely upstream of the New Jerusalem Rd. samples there were 75 Soil sample exceedances namely 20 for DDT, 24 for DDE and 10 for DDD. There were 21 exceedances for Dioxins/F. Therefore out of a total of 144 Soil samples, 52% exceeded the criteria for these toxic chemicals.

There were a total of 93 exceedances for Sediments at Station 21. These were 19 for DDT, 22 for DDE and 15 for DDD as well as 27 exceedances for Dioxins/F. Thus 33% of the 280 total samples at this location exceeded the criteria.

Downstream of Station 20 we had 115 Soil exceedances of the criteria. 28 were for DDT, 36 for DDE and 24 for DDD. Dioxins/F had 27 exceedances. Thus 60% of the 192 Soil samples exceeded the criteria for DDT, DDE, DDD and Dioxins/F.

Sediments downstream of Station 20 had an even higher number of exceedances. There were 138 exceedances consisting of 24 for DDT, 25 for DDE and 35 for DDD. Dioxins/Furans had 54 exceedances. This is a total of 38% of the 365 samples analysed exceeded the various criterias.

Lastly we have the Lanxess property itself. There were a total of 69 Soil exceedances in the creekbank Soils consisting of 13 for DDT, 15 for DDE and 14 for DDD. There were 27 Dioxin/F exceedances in these creekbank Soils. This is a total of 24% of the 288 Soil samples exceeded the various criteria for these chemicals.

Creekbed Sediments had 60 exceedances consisting of 13 for DDT, 9 for DDE and 14 for DDD. There were 24 Dioxin/F exceedances. This is 35% of the 172 Lanxess property Sediment samples exceeding the criteria for these chemicals.

As stated earlier by a Commenter here in my Blog, these sample totals are quite astounding. It is unfortunate in my opinion that the sample locations were not chosen more appropriately to cover the entire 7.5 kilometres of the creek from Uniroyal/Lanxess all the way down to the Grand River. Any claims by GHD/Lanxess that they had M.O.E. approval for their Workplan are likely honest. Any claims that they consulted with all the stakeholders and the general public are just plain disingenuous and dishonest.

Monday, April 16, 2018


Last Saturday I posted about the Soil and Sediment results at Northfield Drive and then upstream to the east side of New Jerusalem Rd. and then Station 21 immediately on the west side of New Jerusalem Rd. We continue westwards to Station 20 which is just a couple of hundred metres downstream of the Lanxess site. Lastly we examine the Soil and Sediment results on both sides and in the bottom of the creek as it travels north to south through the Lanxess property.

Station 20 covers an area at least 800 metres in length. Although the first four sample locations are all bunched together at the extreme north-west corner of this stretch, the last four sample locations are all well spaced and well apart as they head downstream towards Station 21. There were a total of 115 exceedances of criteria (both DDT & Dioxins) in the Soil samples and 77 results which were below the Table 8 criteria for Lanxess's defined COCs (Contaminants of Concern ie. DDT & metabolytes plus Dioxins/Furans). A total of 192 Soil samples were taken at this location.

For Sediments at Station 20 we had 137 exceedances for both COCs and 227 results which were either below criteria for Dioxins or non-detect in large part due to the Detection Limit exceeding the criteria for DDT, DDD and DDE. This was a total of 364 samples taken from this location. Strangely even with very high TEQ (Dioxin) results at the upstream end of Station 20 sampling there were even higher results downstream past the discharge from the Stroh Drain which Lanxess, GHD and the Ontario M.O.E. are desperately trying to ignore. This is especially so for DDT and its' metabolytes.

Interestingly the Lanxess site had "only" 69 Soil sample exceedances and 219 results below either the criteria or the Detection Limit. Regarding Sediments there were 60 exceedances of criteria and 112 results either below the criteria or below the Detection Limits. This is interesting as allegedly this site is the source of everything downstream all the way to the Grand River. Intellectually that is correct of course as all the production of DDT (insecticide) and 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (herbicides) took place on the west side of the Canagagigue Creek. Also there has been past efforts to clean up the creekbanks along the Uniroyal/Chemtura site which should have lowered DDT and Dioxin detections.

There were however two pipelines in full throttle taking these liquid wastes across the creek and pumping them up to the east side ponds namely RPE1-5. Drums full of liquid toxic wastes were also buried on the east side in RPE-5, BAE-1, RB1 & 2 along Uniroyal Chemical's east side border with the Stroh farm. It has long been apparent from the lower concentrations of these contaminants in the soils near the creek on the east side that some sort of diversion took place. Uniroyal/Chemtura have long claimed that all liquids flowed west & south from these pits and ponds, none east. That has now been disproven courtesy of myself and CPAC. Furthermore Uniroyal's refusal with Ministry of Environment acceptance to put any hydraulic containment in the shallow aquifers on the east side of the creek also indicated that they had "solved" the east side liquid waste problem privately and dare I say surrepticiously.

The extent of this environmental disaster here in southern Ontario is grotesque. Now watch the Mickey Mouse remediation plans which come forward. In this province it is not polluter pays. It is polluter pretends to pay while hiding behind the Ontario Ministry of Environment.

Saturday, April 14, 2018



Over the last couple of weeks plus I've complained and criticized this report for being difficult to follow and difficult to read. Some of it has been inherent to the number of samples involved (approx. 1,000) in really just two locations namely Northfield Dr. and the New Jerusalem Rd. area. Now keep in mind while GHD & Lanxess may call this three locations two of them are mere feet apart with Station 21 samples on the left side (west) and new Jerusalem on the right (east) side when you are facing north. This number of approx. 1,000 consists of multiple different samples in the same location merely deeper usually with three depths in soils (0-5, 5-10, 10-15 cm.) and four depths in sediments (05, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30 cm.) It also includes four different parameters (DDD, DDE, DDT, Dioxin TEQ). It also includes two discrete samples at each Soil location and three discrete Sediment samples at each location.

There are also a ton of samples further upstream including the Lanxess site itself and Station 20 just below the Lanxess site. Much further downstream the Northfield Dr. location has a mere 220 samples including both Soils and Sediments. There is literally miles of untested creek above and below Northfield Drive. These numbers and locations speak to both the locational bias I spoke of yesterday as well as partially to the sub-title above. Are all these samples necessary? The answer is no. Three soil samples merely separated by two inches (5 cm.) of soil is ridiculous. If you really felt the need for three separate soil samples then take them either a foot or two apart in depth. That would give you a legitimate understanding as to how these Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) have really penetrated into the earth. Similarly testing creek Sediments at two inch (5 cm.) intervals is silly. The deeper samples are 10 cm (4 inches) apart which is only slightly better.

Here are some of the results from testing. Northfield Dr. has 22 exceedances in total out of 96 creekbank Soil samples. These are exceedances of the Ministry of Environment Table 8 soil criteria for DDD, DDE, DDT and for Dioxin/Furans. Regarding Sediments Northfield Dr. has only 17 exceedances out of 124 samples. This much lower number is partly attributed to the Detection Limit as mentioned in an earlier post actually being higher than the criteria for total DDD, DDE and DDT.

New Jerusalem Rd. has 88 exceedances in total out of 192 Soil samples. There are 85 total exceedances out of 1,372 Sediment samples. Again the Sediment samples are minimized by the laboratory Detection Limit being higher than the Sediment criteria for total DDD, DDE and DDT thus eliminating a number of exceedances and labelling them as Non-Detect.

Station 21 just west of and immediately upstream of New Jerusalem Rd. has 75 Soil exceedances out of 144 Soil samples. It also has 93 creek Sediment samples out of 280 samples. Just like the other locations the Sediment exceedances while high are muted due to the high laboratory Detection Limits.

Lastly I want to refer again to the sub-title of "Is it intentionally user unfriendly?". Along with the ridiculous errors in the text portion I pointed out yesterday, I was stunned to see how the Tables were organized or should I say disorganized. The Figures (6.1-6.10) list the sampling locations for creekbank soils and sediments in order from downstream right up to and including the Lanxess site. Then in the Index we see that the Tables Section is also listed in the same order. Or is it? Table 5 is listed as "New Jerusalem Rd. and Station 21 - Soil Sample Analyses". Table 6 is listed as "New Jerusalem Rd. and Station 21 - Sediment Sample Analyses". What the heck are they admitting that these TWO locations are really but one? Then when you carefully and equisitely decipher the location code at the top of each sample you find that the Tables are no longer in fact in the same order as the Figures. Furthermore all it would take is a clear darker ink heading/title indicating that the first half of Table 5 is Station 21 Soil Analyses and the last half is New Jerusalem Rd. Soil Analyses. Similarly the first half of Table 6 is Station 21 Sediment Analyses and the last half is the New Jerusalem Sediment Analyses. It too is as clear as mud.

This switcheroo is poorly marked AND it makes comparing the Tables with the Figures very difficult. After Tables 5 & 6, Tables 7,8,9 and 10 are back to being straightforward again. Surely this entire Report is sufficiently detailed and messed up (the text) not to require even more mental and visual gymnastics on the part of citizen volunteers and even outside professionals in order to follow it. If the purpose is to make this report extremely User Unfriendly then I suggest Mission Accomplished. It of course begs the question as to why Lanxess and their consultants are doing this. Intentional or simply Uncaring?

Friday, April 13, 2018


So yesterday after almost throwing out the baby with the bath water I went back to the 2017 Canagagigue Creek report. I slowly went through Figures 6.1 - 6.11. The FIVE locations (only) where creekbank soils and creekbottom sediments were sampled are in reverse order geographically. In other words 6.1 & 6.2 start downstream at Northfield Dr. encompassing Four sampling locations and then 6.3 & 6.4 move upstream to New Jerusalem Rd. where there are eight sampling locations. Soils are sampled and results displayed in the odd numbered Figures ie. 6.1, 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9 and Sediments are sampled and displayed in the even numbered Figures namely 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8 and 6.10.

After the New Jerusalem Rd. site we move upstream (sort of) to the next site which happens to be Station 21. Upstream is technically correct however it's "upstream" by just a tad more than the width of New Jerusalem Rd.. New Jerusalem Rd. is not an eight lane 401 type of road. It's gravel and all of twenty feet wide maybe (ie. one narrow lane each direction). So in other words this third site is merely the continuance of the New Jerusalem Rd. site. Station 21 is covered by Figures 6.5 (Soils) and 6.6 (Sediments) and consists of six individual locations.

Figures 6.7 and 6.8 are for Soils and Sediments (respectively) for Downstream of Station 20. Station 20 is an old designation for a location on the creek where it bends after leaving the Lanxess property and briefly runs sort of parallel to the most southern border of the Chemtura/Lanxess site. From there eight sample locations run downstream almost as far as the start of the Station 21
sample locations on the west side of New Jerusalem Rd..

Figures 6.9 and 6.10 are twelve locations along both sides of the creek where it runs through the Lanxess property. Unsurprisingly despite the amount of work done in the creek (west banks) between 2000 and 2005, the greatest number of exceedances for both DDT and Dioxins are still on the west side of the creek. This speaks to as usual not doing a complete job the first time around as well as the likelihood of a diversion or by-pass on the east side of the creek sending contaminated groundwater southwards and eastwards over to the Stroh farm.

Finally Figure 11 is of the four Floodplain samples (ie. away from the creek but in the floodplain designated area) as well as the one floodplain pond that was sampled in the Station 21 general area. The number of floodplain Soil locations (4) make it pretty clear that for this investigation floodplain Soils were given only token attention. Back in the mid 1990s ten floodplain Soils locations were sampled and they were contaminated from the Uniroyal property all the way down to the Grand River with DDT and Dioxins plus of course all the other Uniroyal herbicides, pesticides, solvents PAHs and more that they wish we would forget about.

By simply looking at the number of samples and their specific locations along the Canagagigue Creek it is clear that the sampling locational bias continues unabated.

Northfield - 4 locations

New Jerusalem - 8 locations

Station 21 - 6 locations

Station 20 - 8 locations

Lanxess - 12 locations

My expectation is that it is cheaper to remediate a shorter, smaller distance from the company as well as to focus on the first mile (approximate) downstream from the Uniroyal plant to just past New Jerusalem Rd. combined with again four token locations at Northfield Dr.. Also it's easier to mobilize vehicles and equipment where there is easy road access to the creek which again is New Jerusalem Rd. and Northfield Dr.. All of this is easier and cheaper than honestly admitting that the entire five miles (7+ kilometres) of Canagagigue Creek all the way to the Grand River is grossly contaminated. Most of these five miles do not have easy road access to them thus it is the usual self-serving psuedo/junk science pretending that the less accessible areas of the creek are clean. Such typical Woolwich horse manure promulgated by Chemtura/Lanxess and their fellow travellors and partners in pollution. The Ontario Ministry of Environment will go along as usual because they are so horribly compromised by their historical negligence, incompetence and let's face it, underfunding and lack of scrutiny by the province of Ontario.

Thursday, April 12, 2018


I've been posting here for the last week and a half about the 2017 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Floodplain Soil Investigation report. I have expressed my difficulty about aligning the text with numerous Figures showing soil and sediment results on maps as well as with multiple Tables also showing DDT, DDD and DDE results along with Dioxin results in creek sediments and creekbank soils. Well yesterday I came to a conclusion. GHD are completely inept. Or should I say that it is the same former Conestoga Rovers folks screwing up only at a new level of incompetence? Whomever this is both an insult to citizen volunteers reading this report as well as a damning indictment of what passes for public consultation here in Woolwich Township. This report was issued on March 19/18. Volunteers and professionals alike have had it for weeks. Have not the likes of Dwight Este and Ramin Ansari of Lanxess read this ridiculous nonsense? What have the Ontario Ministry of Environment been doing? Are they really going to bull their way through and pretend that this report is remotely an acceptable example of a consultant's scientific work? The first public meeting (TAG) is one week away and the second (RAC) follows one week later. Get this mess passing as text in your report fixed and new copies distributed BEFORE the public meetings.

Monday and Tuesday of this week I posted here about both the number of exceedances of health criteria in the creek soils and sediments as well as the number of discrepancies in the text. These discrepancies in the text are with both Figures 6.1-6.11 as well as with Tables 3-11. I earlier on mentioned other errors and inconsistencies in the text such as labelling New Jerusalem Road and Station 21 as "Reach 2". Reach 2 is shown on Figure 4.1 and is further downstream starting east of New Jerusalem Rd. and going right to Northfield Drive (#22).The text around pages 16-21 also repeatedly state that the criteria for total DDT in sediments is .078 parts per million (ppm). It is not. It is .007 ppm.. Furthermore Station 21 appears not to be specifically defined or shown in this report. From previous reports I know that it is located just on the west side of New Jerusalem Rd..

There are constant references in the text to 2,4-DDT + 4,4-DDT (ND*.05) whereas the Figures and Tables refer to this total DDT as having a non-detect of .5 versus .05 . It would be appropriate for this to be explained.

The constant failure to ignore 2,4-DDD + 4,4-DDD exceedances in the text as previously mentioned requires explaining. There is none.

Page 18 claims that the criteria for DDE in sediments is .05 ppm. That is inaccurate. It is .005 ppm.. These references are in regards to samples from New Jerusalem Rd. and Station 21. This is where I was trying to reconcile the text results with Table 6.2 on page 17. It was hopeless. Table 6.2 is titled "Summary of Sediment Sample results" and many, not all, of the numbers in that Table do not match up with anything I can find.

I was able to confirm many of the numbers listed in Table 6.1 titled "Summary of Soil Sample Results" contrary to the mess that is Table 6.2 .

I believe there may be a transposition between 6.3 "Reach 3 and Downstream of Station 20" starting on page 19 with 6.4 "Lanxess Facility" starting on page 20. 6.3.4 "Dioxins/Furans in Sediment (page 20) at downstream of Station 20 has the identical text and results as 6.4.4 Dioxins/Furans in Sediment (page 21) for the Lanxess facility which is an entirely different location further upstream from Station 20 which by the way is also poorly defined or located in this report, thank you very much. Again I can't match up the numbers for Dioxins/Furans in Sediment for the Lanxess facility with Table 6.2 . I believe this is because the entire paragraph of text has been inexplicably duplicated from the previous page. Maybe these are somehow printing errors but regardless why haven't they been caught and CORRECTED and then distributed to all stakeholders?

This is a mess. It is impossible to figure out what the hell they are doing or talking about as they've garbled it beyond recognition. Fix it you twits. Don't deny or sit on it knowing most citizens will throw up their hands and wrongly assume that they simply can't follow an already complicated and difficult report.

Wednesday, April 11, 2018


The Conclusions ie. "Summary and Recommendations" are primarily on pages 22 and 23 of the 2017 Creek Report I've been discussing here for the last little while. Generally I agree with the Conclusions whereas the Recommendations have a severe odour to them. This odour is a very familiar one to those few persons who have been following the Uniroyal Chemical saga and alleged "cleanup" for decades. I would describe it as an earthy bouquet intermingled with strong tinges of rot, death and corruption.

The Sediment results state that "It is typical that:

DDT is generally consistent at the various sample depths and locations

Dioxins/Furans generally increase with sample depth at the majority of the sample locations"

COCs or Contaminants of Concern (ie. DDT & Dioxins etc.) generally are consistent or increasing with depth within areas of deposition.

Particle size analysis of samples does not indicate any partitioning of COC concentrations relative to their particle sizes

The second and third conclusions are extremely important. Neither DDT nor Dioxins/Furans have their highest concentrations at the shallowest depths tested. In fact just the opposite. The ranges for the samples taken are 0-5 cm, 5-10 cm 10-20 cm. and 20-30 cm. although some Tables bizarrely show the last range as 20- .

I would after a detailed look at Figures 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.8, & 6.10 describe the first point (DDT) more as there is no obvious pattern of concentrations with depth. Indeed some samples have higher DDT concentrations at depth whereas many do not.

The Creek Bank Soil results state that "It is typical that:

DDT is generally consistent or increases with depth at the various sample locations

Dioxins/Furans generally increase with sample depth at the majority of the sample locations.

The variability in the concentrations at the creek locations and in erosional and depositional areas do not provide any consistent trends."

The first two conclusions are absolutely stunning. They are the complete opposite of what both Conestoga Rovers and GHD have stated in the past. They have long stated that DDT and Dioxins strongly adhere to soil particles and do not move downwards in the soil. They have reinforced that nonsense by taking composite soil samples from 0-15 cm in depth and studiously avoiding comparisons at depth by sampling no deeper as well as mixing their 0-15 cm sample depth together (hence composite). That is precisely what they did in their report immediately before this one namely "The Off-Site Investigation Report February 14, 2018".

In this Creek Report they have sampled much narrower ranges of depths namely 0-5, 5-10 and 10-15 cm and each sample has been separate from the deeper depths. Unfortunately they still are refusing to look for their Contaminants of Concern at deeper depths because that would only increase the cost of remediation exponentially by having to dig deeper.

The Flood Plain Soil results indicate:

"The COC concentrations within the floodplain sample areas are less than the sample locations within the creek bank and sediments.

DDT is generally consistent at the various sample locations and depths

Dioxins/Furans generally increase with sample depth at the majority of the sample locations."

I mostly tend to agree with the second and third conclusions. The first one regarding COCs I would suggest adding the phrase "generally but not all" after the word "are" and before the word "less". This also may be partially due to the greatly reduced number of samples taken and analysed from the Floodplain soils versus creek bank soils and creek sediments.

Once again finding any COCs (ie. Dioxins/Furans) at higher concentrations at depth is stunning. What is also interesting is the much greater depths tested in the very few Floodplain Soil Investigation samples versus the greater number of shallower soil samples in the creekbank soil samples. The Floodplain soils are tested down to 30 cm below ground surface. This is double the creekbank soil depths of only 15 cm. One last problem I have is actually with the third conclusion afterall. I have just revisited Figure 6.11 . It seems as if Dioxins/Furans are at higher concentrations in three of the five deeper samples. Three out of five is not exactly a large majority.

I have in a previous post indicated my disgust with the Recommendation for a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Far too much subjectivity, assumptions and mathematical voodoo. Perfect grist for professional liars.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018


First off look at the title. It almost implies that you can have acceptable toxic chemicals in the natural environment. This is the big lie perpetrated by both the Ontario Ministry of Environment as well as by polluting industries. None of these chemicals should be in the natural environment anywhere at any concentration. The fact that they are now ubiquitous in the air, soil and water is a damning indictment of human for profit greed and our worldwide political leadership's willingness to tolerate the poisoning of our planet. The fact that they are present at "background" concentrations everywhere is reprehensible.

Back we go to the Lanxess site that was supposedly cleaned up ten to fifteen years ago of Dioxins and DDT. That cleanup was so typical of the cheapest most minimal cleanups that have been done over the decades. 2,4-DDD + 4,4-DDD which again were not mentioned in the text have a total of fourteen exceedances in the Sediments of the creek on the Chemtura/Lanxess site. 2,4-DDT + 4,4-DDT also had fourteen exceedances both in the text and in Table 10 regarding creek Sediments. Finally 2,4-DDE + 4,4-DDE had ten exceedances in both the text and Table 10.

Lastly Dioxins and Furans in the creek sediments on the Lanxess site had 26 exceedances of the criteria. Interestingly one sample in the creek had a reading of 285 pg/g or 285 parts per trillion (ppt) while the standard is .85 ppt.. This matches with the data in Table 10. The .85 ppt refers to the Interim Sediment Quality Guideline (ISQG) while there is also a criteria referred to as the Probable Effect Level (PEL) which is at 21.5 ppt.

Only four historic Floodplain Sites were tested for in this report namely FP5, FP8, FP9 and FP10 although a Floodplain Pond near New Jerusalem Rd. was also tested. DDD again is unmentioned in the text however this time it sort of makes sense as there were zero exceedances of the criteria. Total DDT had five exceedances mentioned in the text whereas I only found two in Table 11. Total DDE is stated in the text as having fifteen exceedances and again I only found one exceedance in Table 11. This discrepancy borders on the bizarre.

Then we hit Dioxins and Furans in Floodplain sites (Soils). The text clearly states that the results in Table 12 had five exceedances of the criteria. That matches with what I found in the Tables section. The problem is that there is no Table 12. What the hell! These results are clearly in Table 11 not in the non-existent table 12. These errors in the text absolutely do not instill confidence in me that everything is either competent or on the up and up in this report.

These are the results offered in the text section of this report and how they compare with the Tables section. I will be looking at the Conclusions and Recommendations and seeing how realistic they are with regards to the data found.

Monday, April 9, 2018


On page 19 of the 2017 Canagagigue Creek report which I am currently studying the text describes the number of exceedances in "Reach 3: St and Downstream of Station 20". This Station from previous reports is located a few hundred metres downstream of the southern end of the Chemtura/Lanxess property. The text states that there were 24 exceedances above criteria for 2,4-DDT + 4,4-DDT in Soil samples. By my count in Table 7 there were 30 exceedances. Unmentioned yet again are the total DDD exceedances of which I counted 27 in Table 7. My count for 2,4-DDE + 4,4 DDE equaled the count of 36 exceedances stated in the text although my count included 4 Duplicate samples.

For Dioxin and Furan in the Soil samples the text says there were 27 exceedances of the maximum allowable criteria. My count in Table 7 came up with the same number although there were 4 Duplicates in addition to the 27.

For Sediment samples at this same general location (Reach 3 & Station 20) my count in Table 8 for 2,4-DDT + 4,4 DDT (ND0.5) was 28 exceedances versus the text claiming 39 exceedances. Well that's peculiar! The text stated there were 30 exceedances for 2,4-DDE + 4,4 DDE and my count was the same in Table 7. 2,4-DDD + 4,4-DDD which again wasn't mentioned in the text was 40 exceedances of the criteria. Wow!

For Dioxins and Furans in Sediment at this location the text stated that there were 26 exceedances. My count in Table 8 indicated a whopping 57 exceedances! What the hell! This is why citizens who are willing to do the work and inform themselves need to be the ones asking the questions at public meetings not just a few handpicked ones whether toadies to Sandy Shantz or Chemtura/Lanxess. There is yet another group asking questions and they are the honest, hardworking citizens who however do not have 30 years of experience reading hundreds of reports and being misinformed by the company or their consultants on the facts.

The next location is called Reach 4 and is the Chemtura/Lanxess site itself. The text and my reading of Table 9 states that there were 14 exceedances for 2,4-DDD + 4,4-DDD in the Soil samples. This time they actually presented the results for DDD in the text. The text stated that there were 15 exceedances for 2,4-DDE + 4,4-DDE whereas my count showed 16 exceedances. Both my count and the text agreed upon 13 exceedances for 2,4-DDT + 4,4-DDT.

For Dioxins and Furans in the Soil at this location my count and the count stated in the text of 27 exceedances were extremely close. My count from Table 9 included 1 Duplicate sample.

Further examination of this report and its' incredible number of exceedances of criteria will be forthcoming.

Saturday, April 7, 2018


Why bother many people would ask? We all know that "you can't fight city hall". Well actually you can and many people have done so, including myself. We have had varying degrees of success in so doing. Most of the battles have been private, especially the legal ones. This is unfortunate but often the municipality or other group, say the Waterloo Regional Police, are willing to settle provided there is a confidentiality clause included in the settlement. A couple of years back I took Woolwich to the Ontario Ombudsman and won. The Township (read Council) had gotten a little out of control with their in camera (private) meetings. Andre Marin, the Ontario Ombudsman set them straight and they were required to bring up his decision at a public Council meeting. One could also put my and others straightening out half of Woolwich Council on their pathetic Election Expense documents into the category of "fighting" city hall. Not one of these cases involved an "accidental" overstating of election expenses. They were all "accidental" understating of expenses with one exception and that was Councillor Bauman's failure to file multiple Financial Statements after he had been acclaimed to Council.

The current case is in regards to Council's penchant for secrecy. Especially secrecy of information going public which might indicate that Councils both past and present have made very poor decisions. I am of course referring to the Bolender Park Landfill. Multiple Councils including current members of this one such as Mark Bauman, Sandy Shantz and Murray Martin have been given reports about explosive methane levels in and around the former Landfill over the last thirty years. Those councillors have indicated at public council meetings that they HAVE NOT READ those reports.

I have read all those that I have obtained and I am appalled at this and other Councils' inactions. I have done my own research on methane gas in municipal (& industrial) landfills and have presented both that as well as the information from the Township's own consultants (Conestoga Rovers) to Council multiple times since last fall. Council have finally made a couple of very modest moves in the right direction. They have also stonewalled my formal, polite written requests for further information. Last November 16 (2017) I sent them 40 typewritten questions all directly relevant to methane health and safety issues as well as taxpayer costs and expenses regarding construction of the old methane collection system, gas probes for monitoring purposes and more. Over three months later they sent me their response. It consisted of excuses as to why they would not answer 38 of my 40 questions as well as one answer which seems reasonable and a second answer which was ridiculous and has now been proven ridiculous with the reluctant assistance of one of the councillors (ie. the ditch filled with non-existent water which miraculously prevented lateral eastward migration of methane).

Elected councillors as a group seem to think that once elected they are no longer accountable (until the next election) to their constituents. They are wrong. The Bolender Park Landfill is an ongoing expense to Woolwich taxpayers the least of which are ongoing, poor quality consultant's reports. The most recent that I have are dated 2015 and 2016 although I expect there will also be another report soon for the work done in 2017. I and my fellow Woolwich residents are paying for those reports. Then there is the safety issue which has not remotely been adequately addressed. There are two currently operating businesses at risk namely #86 Auto Recycling and Elmira Pet Foods. There are also numerous residential homes (and a public park) located on the borders of the Landfill. Besides getting a new Methane Gas Collection System up and running they also need to install and regularly monitor many more gas monitors on the north, east and south sides of the landfill in order to accurately know the truth about methane presence off-site which they and their consultants are merely guessing at currently.

My complaint to the Municipal Ombudsman (Agree Inc.) relates to the very black and white matter of 40 questions to Staff and Council not being answered almost five months later. It is a very simple and straightforward complaint. Either Agree Inc. are the real deal or similar to MECAC (municipal election compliance audit committee) they are not. I have gone through Woolwich's internal complaints procedure without honest resolution by them. Now it is Agree Inc.s turn.

Friday, April 6, 2018


My reading of the large 2017 Sediment/Soil & Floodplain 2017 Canagagigue Creek report continues. I am going line by line through the eleven Tables (hundreds of pages). I have found that the Tables dealing with Sediments (versus Soils) appear to be the most egregious in terms of page after page of nothing but Non-Detects. This is egregious because the Method Detection Limit (MDL) is from 20 to 40 parts per billion (ppb) whereas the Table 8 criteria for 2,4 + 4,4 DDT is 7 ppb, DDD is 8 ppb and DDE is 5 ppb. Therefore any hits of total DDT from below the criteria (7) up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. will show up as ND (.02). Similarly total DDD hits will not register from one up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. despite the Table 8 criteria stating that 8 ppb. is the maximum allowable. This is a farce! Finally total DDE detections/hits from one up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. depending on the MDL of that particular sample also will not register as detections but only show up in the Tables as either ND (.02) or ND (.03) or ND (.04) all in parts per million (ppm). This is the same as 20, 30 or 40 parts per billion (ppb.). This folks is how you minimize and downgrade the overall extent of your client's pollution without out and out lying. You simply hide it in the numbers.

Of course from 1991 until late 2014 informed citizens such as myself, Dr. Henry Regier, Richard Clausi, Esther Thur and others plus Ron Campbell, Graham Chevreau, Dr. Dan Holt, David Marks and more could confront Conestoga Rovers and Uniroyal/Crompton, Chemtura etc. at public meetings and demand that they explain these anomalies. This often would take back and forth discussion and every now and then it would turn out that the polluter and their apologists actually had some logical reason for whatever we had found peculiar. Many times they did not at which point they raised red herrings and attempted to deflect and distract. With this report and the current murder of public consultation here in Woolwich Township, I and others are left with no choice but to believe that Lanxess and their consultant GHD are simply deceptive filth of the highest order. Afterall we can't ask them polite questions as we did until October 2014. Lest we forget Sandy and Council, even Jeff Merriman (Chemtura) verbally confirmed at that October 2014 penultimate public meeting that I was being polite and respectful but that he simply disapproved of what he called an interrogation. When he did so I told him that I was trying to be polite about it and he agreed in front of everyone that I was.

I have gone through pages 17 to the top 1/4 of page 19 and attempted to verify the number of exceedances stated in the text for "Semi-Volatiles" (ie.DDD, DDE & DDT) in the Soil and Sediments at various locations in the creek. I have also attempted to confirm Dioxin and Furan readings in the Tables with what the text says. There are a number of exceedances in the text with which my count in the Tables is very close. However I have also found three counts of mine which were higher than those of GHD. One of mine was lower. Even more interesting is that the text for some peculiar reason rarely mentions exceedances of the criteria for 2,4 + 4,4 DDD. They range from a low of four Soil exceedances at the Northfield Dr. sampling locations to 30 Soil exceedances and 32 Sediment exceedances at the New Jerusalem Rd and Station 21 locations. Intentional omission or not this greatly reduces the perception of the number of criteria exceedances in the creek by this Uniroyal Chemical produced herbicide. I will report further unmentioned exceedances in the text as I find them.

Thursday, April 5, 2018


I've been reading hydrogeological reports for twenty-seven years now, starting with a 1991 Varnicolor Chemical HydroG report written by Golder Associates. I still remember the comment written by hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland on the inside cover of that report after I complained to him of inconsistencies and illogical conclusions or statements. He wrote "Remember who was paying their (Golder) bills.".

Since that time besides likely literally hundreds of reports on Varnicolor, Uniroyal & followup companies, Safety-Kleen, Deilcraft, Sunar, C.G.T., Ciba-Geigy, Northstar Aerospace and many more, I've also read, dissected, questioned and debated with consultants on reports dealing with Hydrology or surface water. I've read and reread all the Canagagigue Creek Reports from 2012 through to this present one I'm working on. Ditto for the 1995-97 Jaagumagi & Bedard Ministry of Environment (M.O.E.) detailed study of the Canagagigue Creek. I've attended all the presentations by the M.O.E. over the years on the creek including one done by an old friend (now a Doctor as in PHd!) I met at Pat Potter's down in Dunnville decades ago. Hi Rachel!

So why is this current one giving me trouble? Why am I struggling with reading it and putting everything together? There may be a number of reasons. Firstly this report is far larger and more detailed than particularly the ones about the creek since 2012. There are far more samples taken plus a few more locations sampled albeit nowhere near enough. The Figures presented are not particularly user friendly and reading the location names on the coloured maps is not easy. Imagine trying to read those same Figures God help us if they were photocopies of coloured maps. Therefore thanks again for the hard copy even though it's difficult enough. The Tables are extensive with Table 3 being 14 pages long, Table 4 being 18 pages long, Table 5 being 62 pages long and Table 6 being 120 pages long. The next five Tables of soil and sediment results vary from a low of six pages to a high of 64 pages.

As is my usual practice I do NOT simply read either the Executive Summary alone or even the text on its' own. In fact the text in this Report is a quite skinny 23 pages only. Far too many reports by Uniroyal Chemical and its' successors' consultants and possibly some others have gilded the lily and cherry picked data from their own reports in order to come up with Conclusions that are far too rosy and gentle on their clients who are afterall paying for their reports. That in fact is the huge sham of allegedly professional consultants who would like both repeat business from their current clients as well as positive references given by them to other future clients. It is our governments who make the rules and pass the laws which grotesquely favour these incestuous and self-serving relationships. The key is self-serving relationships favouring polluters versus a system that should be favouring the public interest only.

Another part of the problem is reconciling the text with the hundreds of pages of Tables. It is very difficult when finally in hindsight you realize that the text strongly appears to be quoting repeatedly the wrong criteria known as Table 8 (M.O.E.) for DDT and its' metabolytes DDD and DDE. The criteria for soils are less stringent than the criteria for sediments in the bottom of the creek. This is likely due to the fact that there are lifeforms which not only reside in the sediments (benthic community) but also that are consumed on a daily basis by higher lifeforms such as fish, frogs, etc.. Therefore the soils criteria for example in Tables 3 & 5 in this Report are .05, .05 and .078 ppm. respectively for DDD, DDE and DDT. However for sediments the criteria in this Report (Tables 4 & 6 etc.) are more stringent namely .008, .005 and .007 ppm. respectively for DDD, DDE and DDT. Unfortunately on pages 17-20 in the text the values quoted as being for sediments are in fact the soil criteria of .05, .05 and .078. Again to further complicate reconciling the text to the Tables is the fact that our idiot Mayor relied upon the grossly biased word of Chemtura and the Ontario M.O.E. to remove myself, CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) and the general public from being able to question either Chemtura/Lanxess or their consultants GHD, the authors of this report at public RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) and TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meetings in which Chemtura and GHD might be present. Well done politicians in successfully removing the very few (if only?) citizens who will read this report cover to cover from being able to confirm errors and flaws in the report. These errors may turn out to have some sort of explanation or not, we will never know for certain with the current "cringeworthy" (Pat Merlihan's word) process in place while at the same time the company, the M.O.E. and the politicians crow about their pretend public consultation.

Wednesday, April 4, 2018


I continue reading the "2017 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Floodplain Soil Investigation" of March 19, 2018. I am appalled. The results both in and around the creek everywhere it's been sampled and analysed are horrific. This is but for TWO chemicals namely DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and Dioxins (2,3,7,8 TetrachloroDibenzo-p-dioxin is the most infamous of the group). Mercury, PCBs, PAHs are not measured in this report along with Endosulfan, Endrin, Aldrin and all the other Uniroyal Chemical signature chemicals they produced while dumping their wastes into the creek intentionally.

A week ago I suggested here that I had found some typos in GHD's text of this report. As of now I'm going to rescind the particular one stating that DDT had been incorrectly substituted for DDD, an isomer of DDT. That is the good news. The bad news is the Method Detection Limits (MDL) for DDT and its' isomers namely DDD and DDE. For a detailed definition of "isomers" please check either Google or a dictionary. These Detection Limits essentially are the lowest concentrations that the lab are able to confidently measure accurately. In the report they are generally at .02 ug/g or parts per million (ppm). This translates to 20 parts per billion (ppb) and is astoundingly high when one realizes that the vast majority of chemicals can be accurately measured in labs at .5 ppb . Also many chemicals such as NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine) are routinely measured in parts per trillion (ppt) which is a thousand times smaller. Then of course we have Dioxins that are routinely successfully measured in parts per quadrillion (ppq) which is a thousand times smaller than parts per trillion (ppt) and a million times smaller than parts per billion (ppb).

The criteria for DDD, DDE and DDT in creek sediments are respectively .008, .005 and .007 ug/g (ppm) or 8,5 and 7 parts per billion. With a MDL of 20 ppb you therefore are going to get a ton of exceedances of the criteria showing up as ND (.02) which is Non-Detect at a detection limit of 20 parts per billion (ppb). This is exactly what shows up throughout the Figures 6.1 to 6.11 . Maybe this lack of precision is unavoidable but after thirty years of watching consultants minimize problems through creative science I am skeptical. Also a very quick look at past reports shows me that DDT has been measured at lower concentrations than 20 ppb. namely between 1 and 10 ppb. (parts per billion). This STINKS in this report and certainly all the ND (.02 ppm) gives a much better visual impression of the overall appalling contamination in the creek than it should.

Going through the Figures 6.1 to 6.11 I have not as yet seen any Dioxins measured in TEQ (Toxic Equivalency as pg/g or parts per trillion (ppt)) that were found to be Non-Detect. That I find astounding. Dioxins appear to be everywhere whether above or below the safety criteria being used. Dioxins are not a compound that can be seen as not a problem at any concentration. In other words they are a non-Threshold compound that can be damaging at any concentration depending upon the receptor and the individual organism within the species involved. I repeat this report is an abomination and for the Ontario Ministry of Environment to be only now publicly pushing Lanxess (formerly Uniroyal) for a cleanup is criminal. Lifeforms including human beings are and have been negatively affected for decades because of this gross contamination of the natural environment and hiding behind either a lack of budget funding or a lack of scientific, absolute proof is a cop-out. Next they are going to go through a mathematically complicated series of exercises called a Human Health Risk Assessment. Maybe also an Ecological Risk Assessment for wildlife will occur. Regardless its' purpose is to razzledazzle the few remaining citizens who have kept up with this years long exercise and to further artificially minimize the reality of health risks to animals and humans. Shame on everyone involved in this coverup.

Tuesday, April 3, 2018


So a couple of weeks back or more I invited my Ward 1 councillor, Patrick Merlihan on a little environmental field trip. It was a very short field trip as the former Bolender Park Landfill is across Arthur St. from the Woolwich Observer which is co-owned by Patrick. We went to the back end of the Landfill which we accessed via High St.. Patrick was there at my invitation as his constituent and I have since confessed to Frank Rattasid whose property we were on. Frank as always was very gracious and understanding of the circumstances involved.

We (or at least I was) were there specifically to debunk false statements made by Conestoga Rovers (CRA) in their various technical reports regarding methane migration from the Landfill. The specific nonsense I was debunking had to do with alleged water, either standing or flowing, in a ditch that lies in a north-south configuration parallel with Mr. Rattasid's (ie. the former Landfill) property. Overall I found Patrick's attitude to be one of superiority, arrogance and disrespect. That has been both his and his brother Joe's attitudes towards me for many years despite my best efforts to get along with both of them. I do grant that I have on rare occasions responded here unkindly towards them when I've gotten fed up with their stupidity and disrespect. That said I do respect and read their newspaper every week, Patrick did agree to attend at my invitation and he did graciously offer me a ride afterwards.

The alleged significance of the water in the ditch is the claim by CRA that this water prevents lateral or horizontal migration of methane eastwards towards the residential homes on High St. and possibly the closest George St. homes. We had had a major rainfall approximately eight days earlier and the ditch involved is shaded by the mature trees present. It was bone dry and I walked in the bottom of it from top to bottom in my running shoes. CRA also claimed that the ditch was three metres deep. With Patrick walking along the top of the ditch and me in the bottom we stopped several times and his feet were perhaps at the level of my waist or just slightly higher. So much for three metres deep.

I showed Patrick a neighbour`s composter sitting in the bottom of the ditch. Keep in mind that over the decades the neighbours have incorrectly assumed that this ditch and nearby trail over towards the Trans Canada Trail (Kissing Bridge Trail) were on Woolwich Township land. No long time neighbour is going to locate his composter in the bottom of a ditch that has standing or running water in it. More significantly I showed Patrick a water access or cleanout pipe, clearly marked as such, again right in the bottom of the ditch. When I asked if he thought that Woolwich Public Works were so incompetent that they would locate an access to a drinking water pipe in an area regularly submerged by surface water; his response was a little less than diplomatic. This water pipe by the way is the illegally located pipe supplying water to Elmira Pet products. Illegally located I might add by Woolwich Township.

The icing on the cake was the appearance of a neighbour whose backyard bordered Mr. Rattasid`s property. This neighbour was very friendly, communicative and helpful. He advised both Patrick and I that he had been living there since 1972 and he had NEVER seen water standing or flowing in that ditch. While Patrick had been very dismissive (and disrespectful) of all the evidence up to that point, he finally changed his tune. This neighbour by the way is the third local resident whom both Patrick and I know who has stated that they have never seen water in that ditch!

So you readers can decide for yourselves whether or not Conestoga Rovers were indulging in psuedo or junk science with their claims of water in the ditch preventing methane flow eastwards. Also when challenged to produce any scientific literature to back up claims of water stopping lateral methane migration, the Township made a half hearted attempt to do so. It was pathetic. My opinion of course is expressed in yesterday`s posting.

Monday, April 2, 2018


If there's one thing I've learned over close to thirty years of butting heads with various politicians, authority figures and others supposedly working in the public interest; it is that it is rarely a case of honest disagreements or differences in opinions on matters. It is a case primarily of selfish individuals and groups who put their interests, usually money, ahead of the public good. They of course are not so crass, brave or honest to come right out and say so. Oh no they much prefer to wear the mantle of authority and sober second thought if politicians and if profit oriented corporations then they carefully hide behind both the politicians and their tame, client driven consultants. This is our system. It gives grossly undue credibility to money and power and generally speaking they exploit it unmercifully.

I have spent serious time and effort informing myself of the facts surrounding the history of methane problems in the Bolender Park Landfill here in Elmira, Ontario. I have not simply asked the opinions of local residents or any other persons who might have an axe to grind against either landfills in general or against Woolwich Township and council. Instead I have done that as well as read the many technical reports produced by Conestoga Rovers (GHD) on behalf of their client, Woolwich Township. I have also done on-line research digging up both old and newer technical information regarding methane production in municipal landfills. Both the references to these articles and their contents have been made available to both Woolwich staff and councillors. There are a plethora of articles from consulting companies, university researchers and government agencies both Canadian and American. All these articles paint a very unpleasant picture when one learns what our authorities should have been doing versus what they have done. Could this be the major reason for Woolwich's bizarre, head in the sand behaviour?

Last week both a Woolwich staffer and a Woolwich Councillor decided to put their bias, dogmatism, credibility and frankly their honesty on the line. I have called them in writing on their nonsense and they have not replied. Undoubtedly both of them have very good reasons, in their minds, as to why they are being so unreasonable, willfully blind and simply bullheaded. Could their reasons be even slightly somehow in the public interest? Well I suppose that occasionally either politicians or others among us have believed that lying to citizens was somehow in the citizens' best interests. Maybe those authority figures have even on occasion been correct in their beliefs that lying to us was for our own good. Maybe this is one of those extremely few occasions. Or in the alternative maybe lying has simply become such an ingrained habit in order to deflect criticism that they no longer think twice about their standard operating practices and always reliable fall back method of handling problems.