Tuesday, April 30, 2019



JUS-G-MAG-Kitchener Jury (MAG)
Alan Marshall

Apr. 29 at 4:32 p.m.

Good afternoon,

Your request to be deferred from attending the jury selection panel on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 has been granted. You are no longer required to attend on that date. You may be summoned for a later panel. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Cathy Sterling – Jury Clerk

Ministry of the Attorney General | Superior Court of Justice

Waterloo Region Courthouse | 85 Frederick Street, Kitchener, ON N2H 0A7

T: (519) 741-3300 ext. 3279 | F: (519) 741-3278

E: kitchenerjury@ontario.ca

For more information about jury duty in Ontario, please visit the

“Jury Duty” section on the Ministry of the Attorney General website:


From: Alan Marshall [mailto:agmarshall@rogers.com]
Sent: April-05-19 11:56 AM
To: JUS-G-MAG-Kitchener Jury (MAG)
Subject: My Jury Summons

Dear Ms. Hughes

My name is Alan Marshall and I am a retired pensioner in my seventieth year. While I am competent to drive, since I've been retired I am intelligent enough not to drive during rush hours, if at all possible. Part of the reason is that my wife survived a very serious accident during rush hour on the K-W Expressway a couple of years ago. I live in Elmira, Ontario which also fortunately does not really have much of a rush hour. My personal mobility is negatively affected by arthritis including having received one artificial joint. The second one is likely due within the year. This is the second time in recent years that I have received a jury summons. The last time I attended court for this matter I was treated rudely and dismissively by the dishonourable Robert Reilly. Mr. Reilly recognized me from a civil case that is more than twenty years old and made inferences and subtle comments to the defence and prosecution suggesting that I was not juror material. I was not impressed by that.

I am not carte blanche suggesting that I am incapable of doing my civic duty and potentially being a juror in a trial. What I am strongly suggesting however is that I do not need either my time nor my health and wellness negatively impacted by attending another jury summons in which Mr. Reilly is in charge. I was a self represented litigant (SRL) twenty years ago and his behaviour was outrageous and unethical and the decision he came to was shameful. If I had any money at the time I would have appealed it. As I was a SRL however he knew I could not afford to appeal. With the assistance from a lawyer working pro bono we were able over a period of five years to reduce a libel award from the second highest in Canadian history (after the Church of Scientology ? case) down to zero. Yes zero from Mr. Reilly's award of $604,000. The new settlement was filed with Superior Court in 2004.

Therefore Ms. Hughes I would ask you to please advise me in writing (or e-mail) significantly prior to my attending court on May 21/19 at 9 am. in the morning that I will not be wasting my time nor putting myself at physical risk only to be disrespected yet again by Mr. Reilly.

Thank you very much in advance for your consideration and understanding.

Sincerely Alan Marshall

Juror No. 4592 Panel No. 12

Monday, April 29, 2019


The Ontario Water Resources Commission had serious concerns regarding Uniroyal Chemical in the late 1960s. This of course was based upon the results of their 1966 study of the Canagagigue Creek (Gig). The Creek was in horrible shape all the way down to the mouth of the "Gig" at the Grand River just south of West Montrose. The baby steps at Uniroyal included emptying out the west side lagoons, clay lining them and putting their contents into the two "Consolidation" pits on the east side namely RPE-4 & RPE-5. This also occurred after Elmira finally left the stone age and had their own Sewage Treatment Plant built in 1965 versus the flowing of raw sewage into the Creek. Why would Uniroyal care about the Creek as long as nobody else did?

A decade later (1980-81) it was acknowledged that the clay lining leaked. Therefore later in the decade (1985-87) the lagoons were taken out of service and filled in. Pumping the municipal aquifer on the Uniroyal site was discussed, ordered, countermanded between 1981- 84 and eventually reinstated in 1990. What a farce. The two east side pits were eventually polyethylene lined on the bottom side thus allowing rainfall infiltration from the top to produce ongoing leachate which spilled out just like an overflowing bathtub.

These east side pits eventually had a cover put over them in 1991. Too late the damage was already done and they were then excavated in December 1993 and put into the Envirodome building on Uniroyal's north-east corner. Then a hydraulic containment system was installed in Uniroyal's south-west corner doing absolutely nothing for the east side contaminated groundwater discharge to the Creek. That was O.K. however as the brain trusts involved (Uniroyal/MOE) already were discharging the east side ground and surface water into the Creek through both the Stroh and Martin properties immediately downstream of the Uniroyal property and their apparent responsibility. This leakage of contaminants off-site has never fully been stopped and indeed appears to be a part of the "cleanup" strategy of the partners in pollution. Dilution/Deception is the solution to pollution in Ontario it seems to me.

Saturday, April 27, 2019


Lying works. I may have said that both recently and years ago. The total amount of knowledge we the public have on the former Uniroyal Chemical site in Elmira, Ontario is not thirty years worth i.e. since the Elmira Water Crisis in 1989. It is about three years worth merely dragged kicking and screaming from each and every new owner of the site. Often the knowledge isn't from what they've told us it's from what they've failed to tell us. For example the Stroh Drain is a huge one affecting the Canagagigue Creek. UPAC, CPAC, and the general public were never told about it by either the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE), Grand River Conservation Authority, Region of Waterloo, Uniroyal, Crompton, Chemtura or Conestoga Rovers. Just must have slipped their wee minds.

Nearly five years ago I discovered it while looking for shooting locations for the CBC Documentary titled "Canada's Shadow War" which dealt with Canada supplying war materials to the U.S. military for use in Vietnam. Agent Orange was one of the nasty supplied items and just yesterday I was verbally advised that Canada supplied napalm as well. Holy crap that particular nasty compound hasn't come up for discussion in regards to Uniroyal Chemical in Elmira. Is that one more piece of carefully omitted information over the decades?

I have two new insights. Firstly the Stroh Drain has dropped the water table between one and one and half metres on Uniroyal/Lanxess's south-east side by directly draining it through the Ditch (SDDB) into the Cangagigue Creek. Among other effects this does temporarily increase the holding capacity of the soil during spring floods versus the flood waters flowing across already saturated wetlands.

The second insight is in regards to the north-west end of the ridge of high ground oriented in a NW to SE direction. The GRCA flood plain map shows this ridge having a distinct and connected "hook" on the end of it. Strangely that hook is not continuous in Conestoga Rovers 2013 reports and their drawing C-02 titled "Existing Conditions". Hence there is an opening at the extreme north end of the high ridge of ground which would more readily allow overland flow of Uniroyal waste waters to enter into the current alleged location of GP-1. This of course is somewhat self-serving for Chemtura/Lanxess as it gives slightly more credence to their claims that the overland flowing waters from the north-east pits (RPE 1-5) ended up in GP-1 first and then into GP-2.

So there are a number of alternatives here. Number one is that the ridge was discontinuous during the 1950s to 1970 allowing some direct inflow into GP-1 but the opening was later filled in thus the current floodplain maps are accurate. Alternative two is that the ridge of high ground was continuous until around 2013 when Chemtura/CRA opened it up to give support to their nearly impossible theory that all the waste waters conveniently flowed into GP-1. Alternative three is that it's always been a continuous ridge of high ground and that CRA simply fudged their 2013 map (C-02). There may well be other alternatives but the fact that none have been offered for this anomaly once again lessens citizens' confidence in Lanxess, GHD and the MOE.

Friday, April 26, 2019


Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record carried the following article titled "$2,999 WSIB payment "an insult". In my opinion it is much worse than an insult. It is downright legalized theft.

The province of Ontario without either asking the working public or holding a referendum took away employees' rights to sue their employer for physical harm that they suffered on the job. They then replaced it with a system totally in the control of industry and government, neither of which are nuetral, unbiased third parties. It was then called the WCB or Workman's Compensation Board. Now it is called the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB) and it is contemptible.

Gerry Doucette the retired rubber worker stated "That's it? They poisoned me, and that's it?" Mr. Doucette was exposed to solvents, asbestos, lead paint, lamp black and other carcinogens on an ongoing basis all without any protective gear. It is my understanding that protective gear was advised back in the 1970s along with other protective measures including better ventilation and respirators but not implemented by the local Waterloo Region companies. Mr. Doucette is also a non-smoker which may have saved his life what with everything he's been exposed to. He's suffered cancer as well as heart surgery, all job related injuries.

There is likely an intentional huge disincentive built into the system of compensation payments. The older the worker the smaller the payouts by WSIB. Think about that for a minute. If you are a WSIB manager under pressure to reduce costs (i.e. payouts) then stalling and delay are your best friends. Have there been complaints about years long assessments of injured workers? Yes and this is one of the reasons why.

WSIB, Ministry of Labour, past and present Ontario governments should all hang their heads in shame. We the people are nothing but cogs in a wheel for the purpose of making money for the few who are protected by the governments that are supposed to protect all of us.

Thursday, April 25, 2019


That is how the announcement in today's Woolwich Observer newspaper should be written. The title of the announcement is "Apply to join the Technical Advisory Group Today!" Further the ad should say "Welcome to a volunteer citizens committee where you will be constantly enthralled with professional, self-serving purveyers of factual fictions who will entertain you with a variety of sleight of hand distractions and tricks. Included will be junk science, psuedo science and cargo cult science intended to minimize your understanding of the severity of the environmental problems in our community. If all this fails then outright lying by omission or commission is most certainly on the menu which will be served to you until you choke on it. Also of great importance to those in charge is the preferred tone of deference if not outright subservience to Lanxess, their consultants GHD and finally to the Ministry of Expanded Corporate Pollution (MECP).

A couple of other points in the ad in the Observer. First off it is not "...remediation of Elmira's former municipal aquifer...." It is remediation of Elmira's former drinking water aquifers. Secondly what is this? Are Sandy and buddies setting up two classes of citizen volunteers or is this just more incompetence on display? It states that the term ends in June 2024. Everybody else's ends in approximately may/June 2023 which is six months after the current term of council ends in October/November 2022.

There is some good news. There are some decent and intelligent people on TAG. Unfortunately they will eventually either leave in frustration or disgust as they begin to better understand that this committee is set up strictly for appearances. The RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) have limited authority but it's still ten times that of TAG. RAC unfortunately are filled with bureaucrats and government employees from the GRCA, Woolwich Township. the Region of Waterloo when they occasionally attend and the Ministry of Environment (MECP) combined with Lanxess (descendant of Uniroyal Chemical). Lanxess and the MOE are simply going through the motions in listening to RAC and RAC bureaucrats know this perfectly well. It's all about the show folks and keeping us little folk entertained with the magic. Call me if and when you really want to clean up the aquifers, the creek and the politics allowing this charade.

Wednesday, April 24, 2019


Police and firefighters routinely run towards danger while the rest of us run to avoid it. Running from danger is both appropriate, instinctual and basic common sense. There are other high danger jobs such as some construction work, perhaps long distance driving, professional sports including hockey, football and boxing also come to mind with brain injuries. Generally however our work to provide ourselves and family with food, shelter and more should not jeopardize our health or lives. Kudos to Greg Mercer and the Waterloo Region Record for their ongoing series about rubber workers in Waterloo Region.

Late last month the Record carried a story titled "Rubber workers want answers about denied WSIB claims." There was a meeting at a hotel conference room on the last Thursday and Friday in March. There were more than 150 former rubber worker employees in attendance demanding answers. One former employee stated "Someone said "What a great crowd". But if WSIB had done their job in the first place, we wouldn't be here right now". The WSIB (Workplace Safety & Insurance Board) are appropriately on the hot seat. So is the anemic and pathetic Ministry of Labour.

To date only 15% of rubber workers claims for occupational disease have been granted compensation despite decades to a century or more of knowledge (in Europe) that chemicals involved in rubber manufacturing and curing are toxic to human beings. As far as cancer goes experts have suggested that as much as 20% of all cancers are work-related. A Ministry of Labour spokesperson said "We need to start treating occupational disease with the same seriousness as physical injuries." Horse manure! "...start treating...". Those bastards should have been treating it as seriously or more than physical injuries seventy-five years ago. What they have done is once again permitted the externalization of industry costs onto the taxpayers and society in general. For every nickel industry saved in not providing respirators, proper skin protection and proper ventilation they have put a dollar onto society, our health care system and individual victims of their crimes.

To date both industry captains and their bought and paid for political protectors (politicians) have unfortunately no fear of being charged criminally for their behaviour. Nor will they as long as we keep electing either Liberal or Conservative governments here in Ontario. We the citizens are ill used by our governing authorities. Always it has been and always it will remain until more of us come to our senses and see what is happening.

Tuesday, April 23, 2019


Well the Financial Statements from the candidates in last fall's municipal election were due to be submitted a month ago. Of course we the public, better known to experienced and long term politicians as the unwashed masses only permitted to "speak" once every four years, haven't even gotten a glimpse of them yet. What a great deal for recalcitrant, incompetent and just plain lazy politicians. Allegedly the Municipal Clerk is examining these Financial Statements prior to their release in the hopes that she can head off the most flagrant and fragrant concoctions that a few councillors come up with. The reality is that for all we know they were all filed late but the new $500 late filing penalty won't be imposed because it's all in house now, out of the public purview. Ahh politicians.

A number of excuses and pathetic whinings were heard from Mark, Sandy and Scott the last time around. Apparently Woolwich really caught the attention of Queen's Park four years ago both with the number of councillors on the wrong side of the law as well as with the Mickey Mouse attempts to properly investigate both by MECAC (Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee) as well as by our courts in Kitchener. Yes Sandy that was corruption and you were a part of it. It may be true that the corruption by the elected councillors was more about deceiving the public than it was about dishonest results. That said Sandy won the 2014 election handily but her manipulations and stick handling afterwards to avoid the consequences of the Municipal Election Act, in my opinion has given Woolwich Township a mayor who history will judge as having been in office illegally. Her reinstatement by Justice David Broad was conditional and she did not abide by those conditions which included producing another new Financial Statement with all appropriate election expenses included. All expenses were not produced and I submitted to the Crown Prosecutor (Fraser Kelly) some of the missing ones which he did not move forward on. The evidence was very strong and included public photographic evidence of election expenses she again failed to include.

It would not surprise me in the least for Sandy and others to be whispering in the new councillors' ears that the bogeyman (me) is lurking in the shadows just waiting to pounce on them for the slightest mistake in their financial statements. Nothing could be further from the truth. One the new councillors (Redekop & McMillan) will be judged upon their behaviour and performance in council. So far I've heard both compliments and criticisms but nothing terrible for either one. Secondly simple and honest errors will not be worthy of much of my valuable time being spent on them. Four years ago the errors were basic, stupid, gross and in some instances even intentionally subtle and sneaky. That was the reality four years ago but liars then are liars now and in a corrupt system and process, lying works. This is the huge reality of our political system.

Monday, April 22, 2019


Canadians have the unique ability to throw out the very bad in exchange for worse. Of course the idiot provincial Liberals had long outstayed their welcome. But replacing them with the likes of Doug Ford and that now local idiot Mike Harris. Really? Full disclosure: I'm not a Conservative. However I actually liked and respected the real Michael Harris who represented us in the Ontario legislature for years. I spoke with him and appreciated his skills.

Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following story titled "Residents worry about gravel pit changes". Yes North Dumfries is loaded with gravel pits. So are we in Woolwich Township. They do not follow the rules. They do not rehabilitate worth beans. They do not restore farmland back to its original quality of farmable soils. They stay open for decades by simply reducing the number of loads they remove per year in order not to have to close the pits. They opened a pit outside Winterbourne on the basis of an above water table pit only to now go back to achieve a below water table gravel pit. They locate along the Grand River and it is death by a thousand cuts with all the pits along the river. Groundwater quality is reduced as the filters of sand and gravel are systematically removed. People living nearby are subjected to noise, dust and heavier truck traffic. Scenic viewscapes are replaced with moonscapes.

Don't fool yourselves for one second. We do not need all the gravel from all the pits here in southern Ontario. Economic considerations and demand are not even a remote part of the decision making process in regards to pit siting and approvals. It's all about making more money for a few individuals and their ongoing donations to Liberal and Conservative party coffers. As always the people be damned.

Saturday, April 20, 2019


It truly is amazing how practical smart our previous generations were. For example when you look carefully at aerial photographs you realize that the previous Stroh generation located their farm fields and farmhouse on the outskirts of Elmira (Hwy # 86)on the high ground just immediately above the one hundred year floodplain line as drawn by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). I believe that those location decisions were made many decades prior to the GRCA actually calculating and computing based upon elevations and calculations of water levels.

These decisions were also made many decades prior to any man made earthworks devised to mitigate flood damage. They were also obviously made decades before the Woolwich Dam was constructed in 1972. It was constructed both in summer and low flow periods to flush Uniroyal wastes down the Canagagigue Creek as well as to assist in reducing spring floods. It is however primarily an earthen dam albeit with considerable rock involved but nevertheless I believe that catastrophic dam failures are far more likely with earthen dams than with totally concrete dams.

I left some hints in Thursday's post here in the Advocate in regards to a berm on the Stroh property in a somewhat peculiar location. That location is on the immediate east side of the Stroh Drain and hence runs in a north-south line. The two recent March 2019 aerial photographs showed the floodplain line coming from north to south similar to the flow direction of the Creek on their site although then expanding in an easterly direction approximately at the 347.5 metres above sea level (masl) ground elevation contour. There are then two narrow southward sort of U shaped contours in the floodplain line with the second one being much longer and narrower than the first more northerly one. That second one is actually the berm on the east side of the Stroh Drain. Hence it is apparent from the aerial photographs that both the Stroh Drain and the berm were engineered to block the flow of flood waters in an eastward direction. The question is why.

Recall that in the first paragraph I indicated that the farm fields and the original farmhouse were located outside (i.e. higher elevation) than the 100 year floodplain line. Therefore why build a dual purpose drain, ditch and berm? It's a drain as it has successfully drained both surface and groundwater from both the Lanxess and Stroh property since approximately 1985. It is a ditch as it is approximately six feet deep and usually only has a few inches of water in the bottom flowing south and south-east back into the Canagagigue Creek. Lastly what are known as the dredge spoils (earth excavated from the ditch) are in fact a large berm that in conjunction with the ditch is stopping and redirecting eastward flowing creek waters in a southward direction. For me the only possible reason is to mitigate, reduce and redirect the force of the flooding Canagagigue Creek from scouring and eroding highly contaminated soils (Dioxins/furans/lindane/PCBs?) to the immediate east of the drain and ditch and berm.

From this point on I will refer to the Stroh Drain as the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm or SDDB.

Thursday, April 18, 2019


Is it a plane? Is it a comet? No it's superberm! O.K. I recall thinking several years back, what kind of berm? Perhaps a visual berm as is used along roads to hide gravel pits. Or perhaps as a noise berm as is used in places along the Conestoga Parkway to deaden traffic noise from nearby subdivisions. That's as far as I got and no further clarification was given.

Frankly while I didn't forget this comment that it looked like a berm from Vivienne Delaney, I simply couldn't see it. A berm for what and to do what? That topographical feature was indeed obvious to Dr. Dan Holt, Vivienne and myself back in the spring of 2014 as we toured the Stroh Drain and tried to get a handle on what we were seeing. The high mounds of earth on the east side of the north to south running Stroh Drain seemed a reasonable place to put the excavated earth from the Drain. Why they only went on one side wasn't immediately clear to me although I suspected that after Uniroyal Chemical's waste waters stopped flowing across their property line onto the lower lying Stroh property, that heavy rains would also cause some surface water flow from Chemtura/Lanxess into the Drain. Therefore if the excavated earth was put on the west side of the Drain it would block incoming surface flow from heavy rainfalls.

Well. Well. Well. Then I did what I do best. I looked again (and again) at all the data I had including the very recent two reports from GHD last month. That was the March 2019 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Floodplain Investigation Report and the Conceptual Site Model report. My nearly seventy year old eyes spotted something new in both those reports. I examined old aerial photographs from 1930, 1955, 1968 etc. of the south-east corner of the Uniroyal/Lanxess property as well as of the adjoining Stroh property.

That information I combined with the new information I picked up on the site tour. Holy crap it came to me. I had asked Ramin if someone had dredged or cleaned out the Stroh Drain downstream because the water level was so dramatically lowered. He did not respond. I had looked at many photographs over the years presented by Conestoga Rovers and likely GHD as well showing the GRCA 100 year flood line. The two latest GRCA flood line drawings in the March 2019 two reports just previously mentioned had the tiniest of differences with the CRA photos/drawings. A skeptic might even use the word altered to describe CRA's drawing of the GRCA flood line on the various Chemtura/Lanxess reports. That is a very nasty word and could describe behaviour of an unethical nature. Or worse.

This is an example of how polluters and their alleged regulator the Ontario MOE successfully deceive and manipulate even the best intentioned and most concerned citizens. I expect that the combination of junk science and credentialism combined with constantly self-serving conclusions in their reports are usually adequate to achieve their aims of minimizing contamination and reducing their cleanup costs. Sometimes however a little more is required. This may include political muscle flexing such as removing the very best and most knowledgeable citizens from the municipally appointed public advisory committee as Chemtura, the MOE, and Sandy Shantz and Mark Bauman did in 2015. It may include modest lying, deceit, deflection and simply avoiding testing of known contaminated areas while applying the previous three actions.

I'll be blunt. Given the slightest opportunity I can still pick up on facts, data, photographs and combine them with thirty years of first hand experience to get to uncomfortable truths that none of our guilty parties and their supporting casts of politicians and authorities want to know or hear. Of course with early full disclosure I could do this years sooner. Every possible excuse has been used and will be used to silence the most knowledgeable critics of the environmental status quo in Elmira, Ontario. Other citizens on TAG and RAC are trying hard but they were appointed or put there with the expectation that they could be "managed" one way or the other. That is to the discredit of those who appointed them not to the appointees.

Wednesday, April 17, 2019


David Bethune wrote an article chastising the Region of Waterloo (ROW) back in the mid 1990s. He suggested that up until the time of the Elmira Water Crisis, Waterloo Region was the largest community in Canada dependent on groundwater which did not have a full time hydrogeologist on staff. At a later date, likely under professional pressure, Mr. Bethune moderated his comments somewhat, giving the ROW credit for the serious efforts they had made since the Water Crisis.

The reality is that by long before 1990 Waterloo Region's groundwater had been irreparably damaged by local industries. The Grand River had been used as an open sewer by rubber industries, chemical industries, tanneries, textiles, furniture manufacturers and so much more. Agriculture routinely grazed their cattle on the floodplains of the Nith, Conestogo, the Grand and all the smaller tributaries adding bacteria and protozoa (remember cryptosporidium?) along with nitrates and nitrites into both ground and surface water. It has gotten better for which the ROW, sometimes with various politicians kicking and screaming in protest, has to be given credit.

Nevertheless it was too little too late. Our tap water is highly chlorinated whether from chlorine directly or via chloramine. Our water treatment costs increase dramatically every year due to ongoing problems with nitrates, nitrites, chloride, sodium, TCE (trichloroethylene) a DNAPL (dense non-aqueous phase liquid) chemical. Also of course and despite water conservation efforts we have more people and more demand every single year. I have in the past suggested that the ROW often play musical wells by shutting down some wells as contaminant plumes approach and starting up others. With ever increasing people and demand exactly how long can that continue? I would suggest that the one saving grace for the ROW and their primarily groundwater based water system is the death of local manufacturing which used massive amounts of water in their processing. This painful switch in employment for many has extended the life of groundwater usuage here.

Wilmot Township to the west is blessed with nitrate/nitrite issues in their groundwater. Road salt is one of the sources of both chlorides and sodium throughout the ROW although industrial contamination also raises those levels. TCE is the gift that seems to keep on giving forever whether at the William St. wellfield in Waterloo, the Parkway wellfield in Kitchener or the Middleton and Elgin wellfields in Cambridge. Petroleum hydrocarbons are present both from industry as well as from leaking underground tanks at service stations throughout the ROW. Bacteria of course still thrive in the Grand River as well as most surface waters although again the ROW have attempted to persuade farmers to reduce cattle grazing and watering directly in the local rivers.

I believe that overall our groundwater is pooched as I described somewhat yesterday. The will has been slowly growing to actually get serious enforcement of all the rules and regulations protecting our water sources. Unfortunately politicians generally are NOT environmentalists no matter what they publicly profess. It's still all about the money and the people who have benefited from cheap to free disposal of their business wastes at the expense of both the public and the environment prefer that situation to continue. Or quoting Dr. Richard Jackson "It's not a technical issue it's a public policy issue."

Tuesday, April 16, 2019


It's pooched. Salt, sewage, nitrates, nitrites, industrial contamination, TCE, other DNAPLs, chlorides & sodium from salt, bacteria (E.Coli, coliforms), petroleum chemicals including LNAPLs, benzene, toluene you name it and we've got it. Maybe it all boils down to costs. We have some of the most expensive water coming from the Grand River and the Middleton St. wellfield. This is because they are two of the most heavily contaminated sources and require so much more treatment prior to entering the distribution systems.

Boiled down the biggest threats to our drinking water are agriculture (bacteria & nitrates/nitrites from manure), industry (solvents & petroleums) and automobiles (road salt & gas & oil spillage). Up here in Woolwich so far we've lost the West Montrose wellfield (bacteria from sewage & river water) and the Elmira wellfields (industrial contamination from multiple sources). The threats as listed by the Region of Waterloo are at all our wellfields.

My opinion is that when treated lake water is cheaper than heavily treated groundwater then we will make the switch by building a pipeline. In the meantime the puffery and bull.... will continue regarding our so called high quality, world class tap water. What it is, is heavily chlorinated (& other treatments) contaminated ground and surface water (Grand River) that is becoming more contaminated and more expensive to treat year after year. Welcome to mankind's domination of nature with the totally expected accompanying adverse results.

P.S. Expect the appropriate authorities to continue talking up a storm and also writing up a storm. The Waterloo Region chapter in the Drinking Water Source Protection Plans has a lot of good information. For example the Elmira north and south wellfields are completely written out of these plans. It's an admission that they are likely gone forever. The "Policies" and "Risk Management Plans" are well written and thought out. Meanwhile our provincial politicians, both Liberal and Conservative, continue to financially squeeze Conservation Authorities and the Ministry of Environment. They are sending a clear message namely ignore what we do and don't do and please focus on our spoken and written words because talk is far cheaper than action and we want everybodys' votes whether polluters or victims.

Monday, April 15, 2019


Politicians. They know what to say to get support and they also know how to pass on bad news. The Remediation Advisory Committee (RAC) which fundamentally does bugger all except give a thin veneer of "public consultation" despite being fundamentally bureaucrats and politicians is having their minimum meetings per year reduced to three from four. Apparently four meetings a year is too onerous for the destroyer of Elmira's drinking water aquifers. Sandy Shantz let us in on the news last Thursday. This is an affront to the public and the stakeholders if for no other reason than four miserable opportunities per year to speak truth to power (via Delegation) have been reduced to three.

Tiffany Svensson, chair of TAG, advised the meeting that she will be bringing a labratory expert to talk to TAG about detection limits. I expect that the discussion will focus on all the variables involved and a defence of the ridiculously high method detection limits (MDL) in the recently released March 2019 Canagagigue Creek Investigation report. Instead it should focus on how detection limits anywhere from 2 1/2 to 100 times greater than the DDT criteria render the report meaningless.

Joe Kelly again advised that in his opinion the shovel method of collecting sediment samples skews the report. Core samples are the proper way to do it without losing the finer material where the DDT and dioxins are likely attached. Twenty-four sediment samples were taken by core sampler and 338 taken by shovel. That is ridiculous and combined with high detection limits renders the report even more meaningless than it already is.

Both Tiffany and Jason (MOE) discussed data gaps and whether they were significant. Tiffany wants to get the remediation work done as does Jason who however asked whether the data gaps actually mean something. My response is of course they do. They will affect whether it's a five million dollar cleanup or a fifty million dollar cleanup. Guess which Lanxess, GHD, and the MOE favour? After all dilution and migration have served them well over the last fifty years. Jason (MOE) also suggested that they the MOE are looking to GHD (Lanxess's consultants) for lab information on method detection limits. This is the same bull manure as how Sandy Shantz operates in the next paragraph.

Sandy (RAC chair) suggested that all hot spots need to be identified. Good talk but that's all it is. "Hot spots" aren't even specifically defined for gosh sakes. She wouldn't know a "hot spot" if all the data was right in front of her nose. She doesn't understand detection limits or basically anything about the Creek but she's always willing to ask Lanxess, GHD, and the MOE and will always receive their perverted answers.

Susan Bryant, Lou Almeida (GHD), and Ramin (Lanxess) all discussed coming up with a specific number below which contaminants stay and above which they are removed. Ramin also suggested they need to know specifically how deep, how wide and what distance they will be addressing. He even asked the question as to whether work in the Creek could cause greater harm than leaving it alone. Wow with the concentrations in places being hundreds to thousands of times greater than federal or provincial criteria you've got to be kidding me. Why have criteria in the first place if they don't actually mean something real!

Again there was the self-serving (for Lanxess) discussion of TAG expanding their mandate to cover Lanxess ongoing operating conditions allowing the company to satisfy the barely there conditions for ongoing *Responsible Care verification. Although Pat Mclean was not present as usual Tiffany mentioned that it was Pat who raised the matter at TAG. That's no surprise as she's been Lanxess's and Chemtura's man for years.

Saturday, April 13, 2019


That is what it feels like some days in Woolwich Township. We the citizens are not remotely well governed at all levels from municipal, regional, provincial and federal. Hence O.K. it's not just the air and the water here in Elmira. It's so much more. I think it's the human factor. Surely to heavens we could build robots to make better decisions for us. How about Luisa D'Amato's comments in the Record this week suggesting that the latest snafu in finding a safe injection site in Kitchener (thank you Mr. Vrbanovic) is a prima facie case against the political status quo we have here in the Region?

Hawkridge Homes are back on the front burner. Yes that's the proposed subdivision on Union St. across from Canada Colours (Sulco) and across First St. from the former Varnicolor Chemical. The next nearest neighbour of renown to this subdivision is Lanxess Canada, formerly known as Uniroyal Chemical. Seriously if the developers and proponents had any either a sense of humour or a lick of decency and honesty they would rename this subdivision from Hawkridge Homes to Genetic Abnormalities Heights. Let's see how many homes they would sell then.

The proposed subdivision was defeated at an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing several years ago. Again as in the Twilight Zone it was not due to fear of toxic emissions, fires, explosions or permanent genetic damage to nearby residents. Nor was it due to the subdivision being in the "Kill Zone" for the "Worst Case Scenario" formally designated by Chemtura Canada (Uniroyal). No it was due to the middle of the night noise from shunting trains on the Chemtura property. Seriously, noise.

As a species I am confident that human beings are doomed. This case is simply a tiny microcosm of everything that is wrong with us. Money, power, ego and abuse of authority has condemned us. When the worst of us are those in charge making the rules and laws, how could it be otherwise?

Friday, April 12, 2019


Well, well, well. It was fun. It was informative. It was enlightening. It was most likely a mistake for the company. The good news is that nobody broke a leg in the groundhog holes or on the slopes or semi-rough terrain. Nobody got too upset. That said kudos go to Joe Kelly and Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach. Dang if I'm on the kudo binge then a couple have to go to Susan B. and Pat M. They verbally spoke up to Lanxess during the tour and agreed with me that the Stroh Drain sediments needed to be tested. That was just about the very last thing on earth that Jason Rice of the MOE (MECP) apparently wanted to hear. He got a little snotty and hostile when I asked him a couple of further questions about the Stroh Drain. Very, very defensive. You know sometimes I prefer honest hostility and antagonism to smiles and phony love ins.

Joe had some kind of device with him that registered elevation. He kept checking which way the ground was sloping with it. Sort of like your own topographical map while your walking. Tiffany Svensson, TAG Chair, brought a colour aerial photograph with her of the south-east corner of Lanxess where we were walking. That too was helpful.

Back to Joe and Sebastian. Well Joe wandered off just after we got into the woods as some sh.. disturber may have pointed out to him exactly where the northern end of the Stroh Drain with its galvanized sub-surface pipe poked out of the ground (horizontally). Joe just kind of casually wandered over sort of checking his elevation device. A few of us then wandered over to the property line fence on our left (east) and noted the existence of the Drain as well as how close it was to the property line fence. Sebastian, bless him, managed from the southern end of the property on the fence line where it runs across the high diagonal ridge from north-west to south-east, to step over the downed fence and then walk northwards along the fence definitely on one side of the property line or the other. He may have gotten his east/west directions confused due to the rather circuitous route that we were guided on. I do recall clearly though that the Lanxess/GHD folks were very clear that we were to stay on the Lanxess property exclusively.

Coming back from the high ground of the diagonal ridge in the south-east corner we all descended north and east as we headed towards the "Gap" area. Once there in the "Gap" area it became obvious to me that my estimates of the distance of the Stroh Drain from the Lanxess property line have been too conservative over the last five years. I've been suggesting twenty metres when in fact without undergrowth and leaves on the trees it is clear that the Stroh Drain, which runs parallel to the property line for approximately 150 metres, is in fact only ten metres away from the property line. Oh my! Twenty-five years of hiding this incredible topographical feature and both ground and surface water drain from the general public as well from the volunteer citizens on UPAC and CPAC (Uniroyal/Chemtura Public Advisory Committee).

To say that Lanxess and their consultants GHD do not and have not wanted to investigate and test both the "Gap" area and the Stroh Drain is an understatement. It is my opinion that they are terrified to do so. Their partner in pollution the Ontario MOE (MECP) are in the same boat with them furiously bailing water and providing cover for Lanxess to hide behind. It is pathetic although I believe their behaviour is opening eyes and minds among the TAG members with only three and a half years experience.

The company appear to be willfully obtuse on the entire issue of overland flow from the east side pits having followed the slope of the land southwards and then flowed south-east onto the Stroh property. It really is quite obvious whether from their own topographical maps, from the site tour yesterday or even from the obvious fact that the Stroh Drain was constructed in the lowest lying area between the properties where it could drain both ground water and surface water further southwards into the Canagagigue Creek. One of the issues is whether solvents, PAHs, lindane, dioxins/furans and DDT compounds among others are in the soils and sediments of this Drain. Not looking pretty much guarantees they won't ever be found. Shame on the Ontario MOE for ignoring the public interest, the environment and human health by continuing to provide cover to this corporation.

Thursday, April 11, 2019


Today's Woolwich Observer reminds us that really bad ideas being pushed by self-serving entrepreneurs are always about the money. Putting a residential subdivision across from CCC (Sulco) and Lanxess well within the "Kill Zone" of an air borne release of their "Worst Case Scenario", in my opinion is criminal behaviour. I don't give a rat's butkiss that our laws are so perverted that they give precedence to money and power over human life and wildlife.

Then we have the gravel pit located between Jigs Hollow Road and the village of Winterbourne. It is also located just north of the Golf Course subdivision in Conestogo. I believe it was the idiots on the lame duck Woolwich Council, immediately after the 2010 election tossed them out, who gave their approval in November 2010 for this pit to go ahead. Some may recall that Councillor Martin got the heave ho to be replaced by Bonnie Bryant who was clear in her opposition to the pit. Councillor Martin voted, possibly very strategically, against the pit (after the election) for which he was rewarded in the next municipal election as Ms. Bryant ran for mayor.

Kuntz Sand & Gravel were involved with this pit at one point. We then had the dizzying revelation that Councillor Mark Bauman lived on the same street as Ray Kuntz and may also have been involved with him perhaps in minor hockey(?). My guess was that Mr. Bauman was looking over his shoulder in regards to the incoming changes to the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) and wanted to get ahead of potential allegations down the road. Hmm. Preston Sand & Gravel (PSG) are now involved and apparently not happy with the mediated deal they made a while back. That deal, in line with the Region of Waterloo's stated opposition to below water table gravel pits, was to keep their extraction at least 1.5 metres above the water table. Now PSG want to extract below the water table. Way below it to the tune of ten to fourteen metres or more.

For a substantial fee PSG or any other monied interest can hire intellectual prostitutes with credentials to write them a glowing "scientific" report. Those of us battling air, ground and surface water contamination here in Elmira have dealt with them for three decades. The nice term is "client driven." Quoting Gail Martin from the Elmira Independent many years ago, "sometimes niceness is over rated." She was referring to the "Duke St. rowdies" and their comments towards Uniroyal Chemical in the very late 1990s.

Allegedly PSG have approvals from the MOE, MNR and Region of Waterloo to move forward. The only one of the three which surprises me is the Region. Shame on them if they've made a private deal behind closed doors, not in the public interest. The first two have well deserved reputations among well informed citizens. They are not "nice" reputations.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019


Three points today plus I'm holding another in reserve. First non detects in soil and sediment reports often assign a value of 50% of the method detection limit. Thus if you are giving a result for 2,4 DDD + 4,4 DDE and the value for 2,4 DDE is 24 ppb and the value for 4,4 DDE is ND(20.0) ppb then the result would be 24 + 10 = 34 parts per billion (ppb). That is the norm. In this 2019 report however all non detects are assigned a value of zero which is nonsense with such a high detection limit and with the DDT compounds (DDD, DDE DDT) being ubiquitous throughout the Canagagigue Creek.

The Severe Effect Level (SEL) criteria being used in the tables on pages 19 through 24 I believe are incorrect. The values in the tables stating the numbers of exceedances of the SEL do not match up with the highest concentrations found and reported in the table for each individual compound. In other words if the SEL is 6,000 ppb and the table reports ten exceedances with the highest concentration found being only 230 ppb you can see the discrepancy. The other possible error is that instead of exceedances of the SEL being reported they may have reported exceedances of the PEL (probable effect level) which is a much smaller number than the SEL. Clearly explanations are needed yet with the general public being denied the right to either ask questions or make comments at RAC and TAG meetings then the authors of these inadequate reports are mostly unaccountable.

Joe Kelly of TAG did raise a very important point at the March 2019 TAG meeting. He advised that only 24 sediment samples were taken in the creek by the generally accepted Core method which is a tube pushed into the bottom of the Creek which fills with the sediments in the bottom of the Creek and then brings them to the surface for examination and testing. The alternate less acceptable method is the shovel method and it was used 338 times to capture sediments. That method however does not retain the sediments (especially the fines?) nearly as well as the Core method and indeed the MOE (MECP) were critical of that methodology.

Tomorrow at 5 pm. in council chambers, the RAC committee will discuss the March 2019 Creek report. My guess is that even with some criticism from two TAG members the report will be accepted with minimal discussion and explanation and one more step in the inadequate investigation and remediation of the Creek will be completed.

Tuesday, April 9, 2019


To say that this report is challenging is an understatement. I have been working diligently on it as in hours per day most days since I received the hard copy from Woolwich Township (Thank you Lisa). This work has been onerous including setting aside other ongoing retirement projects, hobbies, and even some family time. I respectfully suggest that even professionals in the field who are working on employer ordered projects all day would be very hard pressed to either be willing or able to spend the time on this report that I have.

It is my opinion that these conditions are intentional both from the standpoint of Lanxess and the Ontario MOE (MECP). I would remind you that I have spent over the last thirty years time studying the 1966, 1995-97, 2012, 2013, 2014 and now this 2017 sampling report regarding the Canagagigue Creek. The number of criteria both for soils and for sediments are staggering when you look at both provincial and federal guidelines, standards and criteria. Table 2 and Table 8, ISQG, LEL, PEL, SEL, Bgnd, for even an incredibly scoped and reduced parameter list of only DDD, DDE, DDT, and dioxins/furans (TEQ), requires constant care and attention.

Then if you begin to include typos and other errors or omissions in this report especially in the tables between pages 19 and 24 in the text it makes understanding even more complex. Further omissions include listing some but not all of the numerical values for various criteria. For example please advise me why SEL (severe effect level) criteria seems so difficult to find in this report. I have found it on-line but I will say that both in the Tables at the back of the report (i.e. Tables 3-11) as well as the tables between pages 19 and 24 it appears to be missing in action.

I have previously mentioned ridiculously high detection limits and their reducing effects on both detections and criteria exceedances for sediments in the creek in all reaches. Those high detection limits are also used in creek bank soils and they reduce detections and exceedances in soil samples as well albeit not to the same extent as they do so with the much lower sediment criteria.

I have also determined that those high detection limits of .020, .030, .040, .060, .110 and .114 ppm were not used in earlier soil and sediment reports from 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 reports whether creek studies or even the soil reports on the Lanxess/Stroh property line. There is a huge smell around these high detection limits and frankly even if they are a possibly necessary result of interference from multiple other compounds in the creek such as mercury, PCBs, PAHs etc. that does not either validate or excuse the fact that they are destroying the credibility and validity of this report allegedly telling us the severity of DDT compounds and dioxin/furan contamination in the creek. You absolutely can not have detection limits from 2 1/2 times to 23 times greater than the Table 8 criteria and 20 to 114 times greater than the ISQG (interim sediment quality guidelines) and tell me that this report is either clear, helpful or credible. Frankly this entire report in my opinion is essentially a crock and useless as is. It should NOT be the basis for anything other than an indictment of the Ontario MOE (MECP) if they do not loudly and publicly condemn it for its shortcomings.

Sincerely Alan Marshall Elmira EH-Team, current and past CPAC member, past UPAC member

P.S. Over the last two weeks I have consulted with various professionals in in the fields of Biology and Chemistry with credentials varying from MSc. to Phds. Terms they have used to describe this GHD March 2019 report include "kindergarten" science and "Cargo Cult" science.

Monday, April 8, 2019


First of all there is a long and involved story behind the expression "cargo cult" science. Suffice it to say that it has a meaning similar to junk science, psuedo science, fake science, scientific gibberish etc.

Last week I posted here about my reviewing the MOE 2012 and 2013 studies of DDT and dioxins in Canagagigue Creek sediment and soils. Indeed I found that those two reports had sample results anywhere from ten to twenty times lower than the latest 2019 Canagagigue Report. That report had its samples taken in 2017 with both soil and sediment samples having a detection limit that started at 20 parts per billion (.020 Parts per million) and often rose to 30, 40, 60 and even higher detection limits for some samples.

At first blush I saw that sediment samples with their very low criteria for DDT compounds of 5,7, and 8 parts per billion (ppb) would be most adversely affected with a detection limit of 20 ppb. in the latest Canagagigue Report (March 2019). By adversely affected I mean that exceedances of their criteria would be masked and greatly reduced by Non Detect (.020) results. Then I looked more closely and realized that soil results even with their much higher MOE Table 8 criteria of 50 and 78 ppb. would also be reduced with detection limits of 20 ppb. much less the higher 30, 40, 60 etc. detection limits. This is because soil results similar to sediments are calculated from adding 2,4 DDD + 4,4 DDD together as is DDE and DDT. Therefore these criteria are two numbers added together which means that ND (.020) ppm. carries much more opportunity to mask actual detections. For example as happens frequently if 2,4 DDD is at 39 ppb and 4,4 DDD is at 12 ppb then the 50 ppb. criteria is exceeded. Unfortunately with the high detection limit of 20 ppb. those results would end up as 39 ppb. + ND (.020) = 39 ppb. which is lower than the MOE Table 8 criteria.

There is yet another problem with the latest report. I compared it to the 2012 and 2013 MOE reports and found that those older MOE reports had much lower detection limits. This weekend I looked at the soil sampling reports done in 2015, 2016 and 2018 by GHD along the Chemtura/Lanxess property line with the Stroh farm. You guessed it. In those reports GHD was able to achieve detection limits for DDT compounds in soil as low as six and seven ppb. in 2015, 2 ppb. in 2016 and 2, 10, and 15 ppb. in the 2018 report. All of this begs the question why the March 2019 report was unable to achieve those same sampling results and possibly more importantly how that has impacted upon the quality of the data presented in this latest report. After all detection limits far in excess of the MOE Table 8 criteria, which by the way isn't even the most stringent criteria, mask, hide and reduce the number of samples which exceed the criteria giving the appearance of less toxic contamination in the Creek than there actually is. In fact even when high detection limits aren't actually higher than the criteria they can also diminish the number of exceedances found as demonstrated in the previous paragraph.

The reason for all of these high detection limits in my opinion whether done intentionally, unintentionally, maliciously, incompetently or for whatever reason is not terribly relevant. What is relevant is that the quality of this entire report is incredibly degraded by these high detection limits. Science is supposed to clarify and use best efforts to help us understand. Massive numbers of non detect values at or below the various criteria/standards would greatly assist us to understand the extent of contamination in this Creek. Massive numbers of non detect values however anywhere from 2 1/2 times to 12 times higher or more than many different criteria does the opposite. It muddies the waters and may even allow the unscrupulous to interpret the data with self-serving flair and imagination.

Saturday, April 6, 2019


Now I'm not categorically saying that the decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissing the class action suit against the regional police, police board and police union is categorically a case of home cooking. It might be, it might not. I'm not positive because I wasn't personally there to hear the arguments of the various professional liars, oops sorry I meant lawyers, who addressed the Ontario Court of Appeal. In regards to lawyers jokes before I tell one I'm going to say the following. I have met some lawyers whom I both like and respect both inside and outside court. That said here goes. "It isn't fair that 98.5% of lawyers give all the rest a bad name." There I got that out of my system.

Speaking of lawyers that I don't like there is James Bennett. Son of a gun if he didn't make an amazing admission on behalf of his client the police services board. As of last Wednesday I believe that the K-W Record indicated that his clients were both the civilian police board (in my opinion mostly filled by toadies and retired politicians) and the police association (i.e. union). Regardless Mr. Bennett has been quoted as now stating that "...he did not dispute the allegations made by the female officers." Wow! Talk about extending an olive branch. If that is true and all parties including police, police union and police board are willing to enter into talks, negotiations and discussions with that on the table; then maybe, just maybe, there is some slim hope for those three parties to make amends, apologize, and as late in the day as it is, to restore some semblance of integrity and honesty to their organizations. Time will tell.

The lawyer for the three plaintiff officers, Doug Elliot, stated in regards to the decision of the Court of Appeal that "The idea that there is more that could have been done by our class members is ridiculous." He also stated "I don't think they (judges) understand the challenges these women faced in getting the system to work for them." It is my suspicion that the three judges at the Court of Appeal likely understood full well the challenges the female police officers faced. After all those challenges were imposed on purpose by the three defendants (police, board & union) in the first place. None of them wanted an honest process nor did the majority of their relatively uneducated, older, white, male members. This behaviour within institutions was exposed clearly with the City of Waterloo back in the early 1990s. Police forces, military and fire departments with their psuedo military discipline and ranks only exacerbate entrenched discrimination against minorities whether racial or gender. It's a boys club and all the members know you have to play ball and follow any and all stupid rules to stay in good standing within those organizations. Many of the female members have had enough of the bullshi. and are rather bluntly, metaphorically, extending their middle fingers at the status quo and the dinosaurs defending it.

Back to the Court of Appeal. The article in today's Waterloo Region Record is titled "Lawsuit against Waterloo Regional Police can't proceed, Appeal Court rules". Is it possible that three very financially entitled and appointed by politicians, judges, would be involved in home cooking? I think that it is possible but then based upon my experience, I'm a skeptic. If the Supreme Court of Canada takes the case and finds in favour of the class action lawsuit then I would categorically suggest that the word corrupt as defined as "riddled with errors" should apply to the two lower courts. I personally have seen corruption in our lower courts. How high does it go?

Friday, April 5, 2019


Both federal and provincial governments of all stripes (OK mostly Liberal & PC) have been promising significant help to the residents of Grassy Narrows for nearly half a century. The promises have been major and the actions minor at best. Mercury poisoning from the former Reed Paper Mill has caused ilnesses and death. The Waterloo Region Record published the following article by Karen Wendling, an associate professor at the University of Guelph, titled "Liberals must keep promise to Grassy Narrows, now".

Professor Wendling rightly points out the difference between the government response to the Walkerton Water Crisis in 2000 versus the lack of response and action to the water and soil poisoning in Grassy Narrows. The Professor also advises that the Canadian government continues to fight successive Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rulings that have required it to better fund education, health care and more for our Indigenous and Inuit peoples.

Professor Wendling is shocked and appalled at the indifference shown by both provincial and federal governments to the plight of Grassy Narrows. She suggests that no government would allow this lack of action in any non-indigenous community and I believe she is correct. At least here in Elmira, Ontario work and action, insufficient as they are, has been underway for decades. Progress has been made albeit painfully and grudgingly every step of the way. Lying, deceit and manipulation have accompanied every positive step but there have been positive steps at least. Not so much in Grassy Narrows. They are left with nothing but the lying, deceit and manipulation.

Thursday, April 4, 2019


Yessss! Faisal Ali, reporter for the Woolwich Observer, attended Monday evening's TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting. This he has done for at least the last few meetings and I and I hope all of Woolwich Township and the Region of Waterloo thank him and the Observer for so doing. The Observer's coverage of TAG and RAC meetings is a public service and should continue regardless of the sham of public consultation which RAC and TAG were intended. There are good people present at TAG and they are sincere in their efforts.The discussions are about the Canagagigue Creek and the toxic legacy of Uniroyal Chemical using it as a sewer for far too many decades. While most of the highly soluble compounds appear to have departed to grace our downstream communities there are other compounds that are known as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) present in the creek which greatly exceed both provincial and federal health and safety criteria.

If I were to find fault in this story I might nitpick about the use of the word "isolated" in the second last line on page one. Perhaps Mr. Ali meant isolated as in off the beaten path. O.K. in that sense I have no complaint. On the other hand if he means isolated as in by itself or suggesting that most of the creek is clear of DDT and dioxins except for "isolated" locations then I have a problem. In fact these toxic compounds have been detected and exceed the criteria everywhere they've been sampled. The problem is that they've only been sampled in a very few locations. Ahh you have to love the English language. One could say they've only been tested in "isolated" locations and hence they were indeed only detected in "isolated" locations.

Tiffany Svensson, Chair of TAG, states later in the article that "Data indicate that we have hotspots, but we don't have all the hotspots fully delineated and characterized." That is a very good representation of the situation. I might add my own comment that I believe that this lack of delineation and characterization is probably intentional as a method of reducing the cost of remediation of the creek. After all remediating three or four alleged "hotspots" and ignoring the rest of the creek is a lot cheaper than remediating two dozen "hotspots" throughout the length of the creek from Lanxess all the way to the Grand River.

Wednesday, April 3, 2019


Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following front page headline "Lawyer asks judges not to open "floodgates"". This court appearance was yesterday at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The lawyer is none other than James Bennett and first of all he did get some bad press a while back by speaking derogatorily in regards to the allegations by the three plaintiffs. Also I personally have no use for him as he did his best to threaten or intimidate me prior to a court appearance by his client, pretend mayor Sandy Shantz, a couple of years back. Mr. Bennett essentially advised by e-mail that I should not attend and speak to the matter even though I was the complainant and reason that the good (but pretend) mayor lost her job as mayor over her election expense discrepancies and worse. His advice was loaded with threats and was intended to remove legitimate testimony from the process.

Mr. Bennett is advising the Court of Appeal that the class action suit of the Plaintiffs should not be certified by the courts because it would open the "floodgates" of litigation to all forms of discrimination. That's very interesting that he thinks so. If it's true than doesn't that speak volumes about the so called alternative methods such as union arbitration and human rights hearings? After all we all know how expensive, slow, and frankly occasionally perverse and bizarre court decisions are yet complainants are so desperate for justice that they would even think to go the route of litigation. I've been there and it's a crap shoot, a ridiculously time consuming and expensive crap shoot with all the advantages to the wealthier parties. I have often written that courts are the playground of the rich and sometimes nasty.

As far as the headline regarding the Waterloo Region Police Service admitting guilt I will quote from the first sentence of this article: "Lawyers representing the Waterloo Regional Police Board and the police union say they don't dispute the facts of the proposed class-action lawsuit or that the allegations are serious, but rather that the Ontario Court of Appeal is not the place where the complaints should be heard." Wow! To me that is an incredible admission and all the guilty parties including our regional councillors should hang their heads in shame. Of course they won't. The "home cooking" reference is for me a recent term that I've learned. It's the equivalent of home town refereeing. Hmm. Maybe the dishonourable Robert Reilly wasn't an incompetent, biased judge but rather simply one practicing the fine art of "home cooking" by pleasing the local power structure which includes our educational sector.

Tuesday, April 2, 2019


Firstly we have an error in the Minutes for the February 28/19 TAG meeting that could have been rectified in mere seconds but for the stupid rules imposed by our pretend mayor, Sandy Shantz. The error is on page three (at the top) of the Minutes and states that the results for the alleged Gap area composite samples were Non Detect. In fact simply from memory I know that SS-21 had a result of 6.97 TEQ (dioxins) and SS-20 was 3.97 TEQ and while I'm positive of the 3, the next two digits (.97) I am not positive about. Therefore due to the stupid rules the one person (moi) who spotted the error was not permitted to interrupt whether via the Chair or not to assist in correcting the error. Therefore now it stands in the Minutes.

Tag Chair Tiffany Svensson advised TAG and the public present that I had sent three e-mails to her regarding issues with detection limits well in excess of the provincial criteria and even more in excess of the federal criteria. Tiffany advised that Jason Rice (MOE/MECP) will be commenting on these detection limits (ND (0.02 ) ppm) at the RAC meeting in council chambers on April 11, 2019.

Susan Bryant raised the issue of depositional areas in the Creek being determined long after the sampling sites for DDT and dioxins had been determined and sampled. This of course certainly appears to be an example of putting the cart before the horse however Lou Almeida advised TAG that resampling these depositional areas will delay the preliminary risk assessment. Aw isn't that sad?

Mr. Almeida also solemnly advised that the risk assessment wouldn't be set in stone. In other words redos are common and if conditions or standards were to change then more work on the risk assessment would be done. That not even on paper promise, in my opinion, is worth just about as much as if it were on paper ie. nothing.

Joe Kelly raised the matter of sediment samples being taken by shovel rather than by a proper core sampler. In fact there were 24 core samples and 338 shovel samples according to Joe. In my opinion an enclosed core sampler will contain the entire sediment sample whereas an open shovel working under the surface of the water will lose more fines and DDT/Dioxin material then it will lose cobble and larger material. Therefore the whole shovel idea blows.

Way to often did I hear the word "prescribed" used mostly bu Lou Almeida. The MOE prescribes this or that and thus we have to do what they say. I view that as Lanxess/GHD hiding publicly behind the MOE while privately telling the MOE what they Lanxess are going to do. It's all a shell game.

Tiffany advised that 2,4-D is soluble. That is very interesting after twenty-five years of Uniroyal and successors blabbering on about hydrophobic dioxins, DDT and more that won't dissolve in ground or surface water. 2,4-D of course is half of Agent Orange from which dioxins were an unintended consequence.

Sebastian raised the matter of possible upstream sources of Dioxins and DDT. Lou suggested that he would like background information on the STROH DRAIN, Landfill Creek and one more further downstream. Well that is excellent. Currently the Conceptual Site Model (CSM) for the Creek does not include the 100 year floodline or the Stroh Drain. Lou claims that he would like to include the Stroh Drain as mentioned just previously.

Tiffany asked whether interactions between other chemicals with Dioxins and DDT was being considered. Lou said no it wasn't. In other words cumulative or synergistic effects are being ignored.They should be considered.Tiffany again suggested that the high detection limits are relevant to Section three in the CSM report which discusses contaminants.

Sebastian rather nicely asked Lou whether financial considerations were a factor in the risk assessment process. Sebastian worded it somewhat diplomatically but I think the answer is obvious to anyone with any knowledge of this process and eventual remediation costs.

Lastly Susan raised an interesting point in that most of the Historical Waste Management Units (HWMU) that had not been remediated (versus only covered & closed) were not hydraulically contained by the Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System (UACTS) as they were either on the east side of the Creek or north of the UACTS containment area.

TAG members are working hard on the Creek and other fronts. They do however need all the help that they can get. Cleaning house (i.e. CPAC & citizen volunteers) every few years benefits Lanxess, the MOE (MECP) and their assorted political and other fellow travellors. It does not help the public interest. Similarly stupid terms of reference formally embodying stupid rules denying citizens verbal input into RAC and TAG meetings is very helpful to Uniroyal/Lanxess and they thank Woolwich authorities for so doing.

Monday, April 1, 2019


I've previously indicated that in my opinion the Method detection limits (MDL) of DDD, DDE and DDT in this report are far too high because they exceed the MOE Table 8 criteria or standards. I've also mentioned that they exceed the federal Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines (ISQG) by an even larger amount. So the question is are either the Ontario MOE or the federal government stupid enough to set environmental health and safety standards at concentrations below what it is possible to accurately test for? Oops maybe that's not a fair question. How about this. Have these bodies delivered lab results closer to their own criteria in other reports hence suggesting that this particular report has detection limits that are much too high?

The answer is yes and lo and behold they are in the MOE's 2012 and 2013 reports on soils and sediments in and around the Canagagigue Creek. Keep in mind in this their latest amateur hour effort they've used detection limits of .020 ppm (and higher!) for DDD, DDE, and DDT in both soils and sediments while the respective MOE Table 8 sediment standards are .008, .005, and .007 ppm respectively.

The soil and sediment results in these reports are on page seven and eight for the 2012 report and on page eight for the 2013 report and include .001, .003, .004, .005, .006, .007, .008, .009, .010, .011, .014, .016 ppm values for various DDD, DDE, and DDT isomers. Seems odd to me that they could confidently achieve these lower results but in this the final investigation report they allegedly can't.

The next goof in the 2017 report occurs on pages nineteen through twenty-three and is in nine small tables throughout these five pages stating the the lowest values they found were at ND (.20) ppm. Come on guys this may be a simple typo that should read ND (.020) but to repeat it nine times over five pages is amateur hour. Are you guys really professionals???

Lastly these same nine tables include the lowest and highest results found as well as the MOE Table 8 standards. I suggest that the lower federal criteria (ISQG) should also have been included in these tables in order to demonstrate that the MOE Table 8 standards are not the most stringent and hence the detection limit they are using (.020) is even more inappropriate when compared to the ISQG criteria. Following are the two different standards:

............Table 8 .....ISQG ppm

DDD *** .008 **** .00354

DDE *** .005 **** .00142

DDT *** .007 **** .00119