Thursday, October 31, 2019


The front page article in today's Waterloo Region Record is titled "Female officers' suit won't be heard". The Supreme Court of Canada have determined that they won't hear an appeal of the original case. The Supreme Court does not provide reasons for dismissing an appeal application. The case that the Supreme Court have chosen not to hear is the class action suit filed a couple of years ago (or more) by three former Waterloo Region Police Service (WRPS) officers on behalf of female officers, past and present, of the WRPS.

Our local courts who have a sometimes strange decision making process (see October 26/19 posting here), this time were supported by the Ontario Court of Appeal who felt that the class action lawsuit should not proceed because female officers should address their grievances through their collective agreement or through the province's human rights tribunal. The Appeal Court also suggested that the plaintiffs "...had not presented evidence to show that the union grievance process didn't work."

I would expect that the WRPS "union" known as the Waterloo Regional Police Association has been very careful not to send out biased or misogynistic written rejection letters to female officers with grievances. I also know from first hand experience at the City of Waterloo that their union (a real union not an association) was male dominated and not the least concerned with the treatment of the few female members they had a couple of decades ago.

The plaintiffs and their lawyer have made some interesting comments regarding the most recent Supreme Court non-decision. Ms. Rivers suggests that it is unfortunate that the courts aren't more progressive and her lawyer, Mr. Elliot, suggests that the Waterloo Regional Police Association is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Also he advised that police "unions" really are not unions and their members do not have a right to strike. They are merely associations with the right to bargain with the employer. Mr. Elliot stated that "The judges didn't seem to appreciate the distinction."

The allegations in the class action suit included gender bias, sexual harassment, and discrimination in job postings and promotions. Interestingly despite past criticism by myself of WRPS lawyer James Bennett, in fact as reported here on July 4/19, he has publicly admitted transgressions by the WRPS towards female officers although he stated that they should be resolved elsewhere than through the courts.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019


This document is dated October 25, 2019 and is a total of 600 plus pages. I've downloaded so far the 24 pages of text plus the first three figures (maps). In a nutshell it is my opinion that this program and related studies, testing, analysis etc. are just one more of many shams, scams, and psuedo science that is far more subjective than objective and far more financially motivated than anything else. Sorry for being so wishy-washy about it.

The big picture: It's all about whether or not a myriad (> 30) of contaminants found in the Creek both recently and as well decades ago are actually site-related Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC). These contaminants include heavy metals (+ mercury), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), pesticides, insecticides (including DDT & metabolytes), PCBs, and dioxins/furans.

The Creek is still a mess despite coarse fish now living in it and bio-accumulating these chemicals and metals. Clean the G.D. creek! Just because Lanxess hope or want mercury, PCBs etc. not to be "site-related" is irrelevant. The DDT, dioxins/furans, lindane, PAHs, and more are theirs. Clean the Creek properly once and be done with it. If the MOE/MECP want to go after hypothetical (or real) upstream polluters after the fact is fine. Get the cleanup underway!

The timing of this Creek cleanup is excruciatingly self-serving for both the MOE/MECP and Lanxess. The collusion and incompetence surrounding Uniroyal Chemicals's destruction of the air, ground and surface water has been exposed for thirty years now. Three Decades!

Most of the blatant bulk waste water discharges of toxic chemicals ended between 1968- 1970. We have had fifty years (Half A Century!) of permitting groundwater flow, surface water flooding and accompanying erosion to dilute and disperse these toxins downstream into the Grand River and further. Our authorities have knowingly allowed neighbouring properties to be conduits to further disperse these toxins. How incredibly convenient to wait FIFTY Years before seriously considering any downstream cleanup whatsoever.

One contaminant after another is being excluded from the list of so called COPCs. Lanxess and friends (MOE/MECP) appear to be willing to settle on DDT and dioxins/furans being the only site-related COPCs. This exclusion process is not objective nor is it remotely scientific. It is entirely self-serving which is exactly what you would expect when the fox is in charge of security for the henhouse. Lanxess, their consultants (GHD) are running the show with token resistance/oversight from the MOE/MECP.

One of the many excuses (not reasons) for excluding various chemicals is that they do not have very much higher concentrations on the Lanxess property than are found immediately upstream. This is primarily due to the wise and self-serving decision to keep Woolwich Township senior staff and councillors on board over the decades. We the general public have long been denied technical reports showing Uniroyal Chemical toxins being dumped into all our local landfills including the Bolender Park Landfill immediately upstream of the site. What a great deal having artificially elevated contaminant levels upstream (i.e. so called "Background") to which you can compare the concentrations you still have on -site that to date have not eroded, flowed via solvent contaminated groundwater into the Creek, or otherwise been reduced over time.

Lastly the actual recent testing in the Canagagigue Creek has all been bogus. Between ridiculously high Method Detection Limits (MDLs) and using the "shovel" method of sampling versus the "core" method, the detections and exceedances of these toxins have all been artificially reduced. For the benefit of Lanxess supporters who cry "Show me a better way to sample the parts of the creek bed with "armouring" (i.e. hard stone, hard packed gravel etc.), let me say this. DON'T ATTEMPT TO SAMPLE THE ARMOURED CREEKBED. Dioxins/furans, DDT and other hydrophobic compounds adhere to sediments and fines, not to rocks and stones. By sampling in the least likely areas to find these toxins you are automatically reducing the percentage of sampling points that have exceedances. By using the "shovel" method you also lose fines as you pull the shovel up from below the water's surface. Also the high MDLs greatly exceed the provincial and federal criteria thus again falsely providing more non-detects which artificially reduce the percentage of exceedances of these toxic chemicals.


Tuesday, October 29, 2019


Since posting the last chapter (#27) of my book "Elmira Water Woes:..." on the Waterloo Region Advocate on October 12, 2019 I have been occasionally taking a peek at the viewing statistics of various chapters of the book. Now I have had the formal *Statcounter program on this blog (Elmira Advocate) since the beginning courtesy of my daughter who is far more computer knowledgeable than myself. It turns out that my other blog, the Waterloo Region Advocate, actually has an internal, automatic counter on it. I have accessed it on October 22, 25 and now this morning, October 29, 2019.

While I am confident that Margaret Atwood, Pierre Berton, Louise Penny etc. would not be overwhelmed with the number of viewers of my new book, I can say that I am pleasantly surprised and pleased. For me what is most interesting is the ongoing growth of readers just between October 22 and today October 29.

Chapter 1 has increased from 71 readers to 74 in a week. Chapter 3 has increased from 68 to 74 in a week. Chapter 25 for example has risen from 25 a week ago to 29 today. Chapter 26 has risen from 37 a week ago to 54 today. Keep in mind that each chapter is a separate posting and usually (not always) on a separate day. It appears that readers are reading one chapter at a time at their leisure and pleasure. Chapter 27 had 38 viewers (readers) one week ago and today they are up to 59.

I think you can see why I am so pleased. This growth in readers so far appears to be steady and ongoing. I have only picked a sprinkling of chapters to show today but they are representative of all the chapters. Some have what I view as huge increases in a week (15-20) and others much less but always rising. My intent has always been to get this information out to the interested public. Waiting for formal publishing companies to get their act and their reams of conditions and legalese together simply wasn't going to happen. If and when they ever do then perhaps this on-line posting will need to end. Therefore readers keep reading because it's free at the Waterloo Region Advocate ( .

Monday, October 28, 2019


TAG - Technical Advisory Group

Oddly we were advised that generic criteria that both the provincial and federal government post in order to advise the public as to what the criteria are for various toxic chemicals, aren't really what ends up being used. We were advised at the TAG meeting by the MOE that these published generic criteria are actually the lowest criteria i.e. the lowest concentrations . Specifically they are lower than site specific concentration criteria that are determined and calculated allegedly based upon site specific factors. I think that that is horse manure. It is assuming that site specifics always mitigate risk. Why can't some sites various characteristics actually magnify the risk? Is Site Specific Risk Assessment nothing more than a mathematical, psuedo scientific method of letting powerful polluters off the cleanup hook? Is it nothing more than giving environmental tax credits to cooperative polluters?

We were then advised that biological information is more important than sediment chemistry. In other words alleged and non-specified biological information trumps the actual concentrations of toxic chemicals found in creek sediments. Again the whole idea seems to be an intention to make the entire process far more subjective than objective. Afterall hard numbers of maximum concentrations of toxic chemicals permitted to be present in sediments really would make things clear and obvious.

Funny how this "biological" information is so vague. Funny how what is or is not relevant is left entirely up to the polluter, his consultants and his friendly "regulator". Odd to me that generations of children swimming in the contaminated Martin pond courtesy of the Stroh Drain just doesn't seem to interest any of those parties.

More horse manure was peddled such as a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) should be taking action before Public Health departments see a problem. Odd how that didn't happen with the Northstar Aerospace contamination in the Bishop St. community in Cambridge. Odd how Public Health have never gotten around to determining health impacts both on Uniroyal Chemical/Crompton/Chemtura employees nor on the local Elmira community, much less on the downstream farmers and families. Utter crap and wishful thinking.

An Ecological Risk Assessment should note that birds eat the entire fish including the head and internal organs such as livers that accumulate toxins. Human beings don't do that but they do eat larger fish which have had more time to bio-accumulate toxins in the creek.

Further peculiar comments from the MOE experts included that they were conservative (protectful) in their assumptions. Then they said that they don't expect to see adverse effects. What the hell. The concentrations in creek sediments and soils are so far in excess of all the provincial and federal criteria yet they don't expect to see adverse effects? Why the hell do you think chub, shiners, suckers and carp predominate in the creek? It's because trout and other fish species can't survive in the polluted environment. The fish that are there have tissue residue concentrations of PCBs, Mercury, DDT, and dioxins again far in excess of the criteria. What kind of crap are they trying to sell us?

Even the fish tissue residues that we were given turn out to be bogus. Susan Bryant reminded TAG that the MOE tested ground up fish tissues that had had the fat, livers, and heads removed first. In other words they cherry picked the lower concentration tissues for toxic chemical testing.

Regarding Toluene and other NAPL (non aqueous phase liquid) leakage from the groundwater on Lanxess's south-west corner into the Canagagigue Creek, Tiffany Svensson, TAG Chair, advised of the e-mail that I had sent her and TAG regarding current concentrations as well as depth of free phase LNAPL floating on the water table in the south-west corner of the site. This of course combined with the recent revelations by a MOE/MECP hydrogeologist (Cynthia Doughty) that the shallow aquifer is still leaking into the Creek is bad news. Ms. Bryant also supported my ongoing concerns around the presence of leaking toluene.

David Hofbauer suggested that slopes previously stabilized on the Lanxess site for 20, 50 or even 100 year storms that are now occurring every 5, 10 or 20 years were also a concern. They may no longer be doing the job they were sesigned for.

Joe Kelly commented that asphalt capping on-site was "glossing over" problems. He also indicated that he challenged some of the remarks from Lanxess/GHD regarding alternative sampling methods. Joe was not amused by the shovel versus core sampling method that was primarily used as it reduced dioxin/DDT readings as the fines were not captured via shovel sampling.

TAG are working hard. Unfortunately their legitimate concerns will be glossed over, deflected, ignored, or trumped with junk science as has been going on for the last thirty years here in Elmira, Ontario.

Saturday, October 26, 2019


I had been planning on giving details and specifics today of last Thursday's TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting held in Woolwich Council Chambers. That may have to wait until Monday.

Yesterday I was advised and so downloaded a Decision of the Court of Appeal For Ontario. The Decision was dated yesterday and the parties are Donovan v. Waterloo Regional Police Services Board File number C66718. The fuller title is BETWEEN Kelly Donovan and Waterloo Regional Police Services Board and Bryan Larkin.

The Ontario Court of Appeal have essentially thrown out a decision made by our local (Kitchener) Superior Court of Justice dated March 20, 2019 . The judge then was Justice Michael T. Doi. The three judges for the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with our local judge on only one point that being that the appellant's (Ms. Donovan) did not plead a tenable claim against Chief Bryan Larkin. I do not find this point to be terribly weighty as Ms. Donovan did not have legal representation and hence was self-represented. Really who the hell can afford to hire lawyers on an ongoing basis? Oh right, all our public (i.e. taxpayer funded) institutions can. School Boards, police, municipalities etc.. It really makes for an uneven playing field which is exactly what those parties want. Regardless the Appeal Court judges have allowed Ms. Donovan to amend her claim against Chief Bryan Larkin.

On all the other points the Appeal Court seem unimpressed with the local judge's reasoning and rationale for his decisions. The Appeal Court judges state "it is not plain and obvious that..." the case law (Fleming) presented by the Waterloo Regional Police Board's lawyers actually stands in the appellant's (Donovan) way. The three judges also stated that "Nor is it plain and obvious ..." that Chief Larkin's affidavit in a related case is subject to absolute privilege. The three Appeal Court judges also state "it is not plain and obvious..." that the appellant's actions contravene the exclusive jurisdiction of a certain provincial agency.

The Appeal Court has quite forcibly and bluntly rejected our local Superior Court's decision from last March. Is this either unusual or rare? Or is this the norm when our local judicial luminaries are dealing with self-proclaimed "big shots" and local movers and shakers? Once again are our school boards, police departments, municipalities, and other institutions being given biased and favoured treatment by our local courts? I only ask because very recently I have seen Justice Gerald Taylor (Superior Court) in Kitchener make a bizarre decision favouring Woolwich Township against Mr. Rattasid, a local business owner and entrepreneur. It seems that the local judge feels that it is perfectly acceptable for a municipality to run a below ground water line across private property without benefit of permission, negotiation, or expropriation and not even having it marked on the property deed. Also of course I personally saw the blatant disgrace of the behaviour, actions, words, and decision of the dishonourable Justice Robert Reilly (Superior Court) as he rejected the uncontroverted testimony of multiple parents in my own case before Superior Court (1996-1999).

Now three cases are not exactly a tsunami of evidence. That lack of evidence of course is exactly what our courts survive and thrive on to protect their reputations. Of course lawyers routinely pleading cases would have a very good idea as to the inherent injustices available to the public. Especially the unconnected, non rich, non "big shot" public who dare to confront our local financially well-heeled institutions. However do you think that lawyers whose income is derived from representing clients in front of these courts and judges are going to ever publicly advise that our courts are less than lily white? Less than perfect? Biased in favour of the well connected and well known major institutions throughout Waterloo Region? I think not.

Friday, October 25, 2019


No institutional memory. No corporate memory. No honest, able to speak up, citizen memory. New citizen appointees no matter how smart and honest. New faces representing the MOE/MECP as well as representing Uniroyal/Lanxess. That is how the partners in pollution do it. Oh and of course with help from their friends and fellow travellors i.e. local politicians. Bring in competent individuals (regularly) while weeding out those who don't follow the program. It's all about constant lying, constant fact manipulation, and human nature to trust credentialed new faces who despite their employers' history believe that they deserve trust and respect.

Last night we had two new (to us) Ministry of Environment individuals who looked good, spoke confidently, were polite and courteous, and yet who mostly spouted platitudes about risk assessments bringing forth facts and data which will enable us to make scientific decisions regarding either remediation or management methods to mitigate risk. In theory it might actually work. The major hurdle is in trusting those who are in charge of the process. In trusting those who assemble the raw data, weigh it appropriately, and then allegedly interpret it honestly.

My first paragraph regarding no institutional memory is exemplified by Ron Campbell's e-mail to TAG as posted here yesterday. Lanxess made an inaccurate statement at the public RAC meeting and no one allowed to speak, disputed it. Dwight Este of Lanxess, among others, knew it was horse manure. He and others said nothing. Ron spoke up via e-mail the next day. Meanwhile any public attending totally missed the attempt to rewrite history.

TAG membership is improving. Pat McLean is gone and Katharina Richter is a strong new member. Sebastian and David Hofbauer are excellent. Joe Kelly continues to call a spade a spade, albeit far more humourously than I ever could. Linda Dickson does her homework and reports well to TAG regarding monthly Progress Reports and more. TAG Chair Tiffany Svensson runs a good meeting and listens to all present and encourages questions and comments from appointed members and formal guests such as last evening's MOE folks. New member Dustin Martin could not attend last evening. Susan Bryant did clarify a few points.

Maybe MOE horse manure regarding Risk Assessments is like religion. With faith you can accept almost anything. Resurrection, eternal life, walking on water, it's all possible if you have faith. Dr. Henry Regier investigated, asked questions, and researched Risk Assessments diligently the last time they came to Elmira regarding the Chemtura (Uniroyal) site. As per my book ("Elmira Water Woes: The Triumph of Corruption, Deceit, and Citizen Betrayal" - Chapter 7) he concluded that Risk Assessments done by the Ontario MOE and Chemtura in Elmira, Ontario were primarily nothing more than greenwashing.

So tell me exactly why I should believe a single word coming out of the mouths of politicians and government employees, especially those from the MOE/MECP? They have utterly destroyed my faith in their competence and honesty. They can trot out as many good and smart folks they want, the decision making is inherently corrupted and not in the public's interest. Perhaps tomorrow I may expound on last evening's meeting with Ministry specifics and TAG questions and comments.

Thursday, October 24, 2019


Ron has been involved with both environmental and health & safety issues both professionally and as a local resident and citizen here in Elmira for many decades. He and his company were involved in the removal of 46,000 tonnes of toxic waste from the Envirodome (toxidome/mausoleum) on the Uniroyal Chemical site in 1999 and sending it down to the provincially licensed hazardous waste site in Corruna, Ontario (near Sarnia). Ron also volunteered to be a member of the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) from 2011 until September 2015. To this day he is still a member of the Citizens Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) consisting of nine former members of both CPAC and SWAT (Soil, Water, Air & Technical Sub-Committee). His knowledge and experience were and are extremely helpful in all areas from groundwater, toxic wastes, air emissions etc.

Ron attended the RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) meeting of last September 5, 2019. Not surprisingly he was displeased with both the process of pretend public consultation as well as some of the self-serving statements and proclamations of fact dispensed by a Lanxess Canada representative. Ron therefore sent off a firm but polite e-mail to the two TAG members whose e-mail addresses he had. As requested his e-mail has since been sent along to the Chair, Tiffany, as well as to the other TAG members.

Ron's e-mail to TAG is available through the TAG and RAC Support person, Lisa Schaefer. It is also appropriately listed on the "Correspondence List" that accompanies the new Agenda (i.e. for tonite October 24/19) as well as the Minutes of the previous TAG meeting on August 1/19. For TAG & RAC business, Lisa can be reached at .

Ron's e-mail appropriately takes Lanxess to task for an inaccurate date regarding when CPAC, Woolwich Township, and the public first knew that the 2028 cleanup deadline was highly unlikely to be met. Ron also comments upon the intentionally stilted, stifled, awkward and inappropriate excuse for public consultation that has been occurring since September 2015 courtesy of Sandy Shantz and then councillor Mark Bauman.

Wednesday, October 23, 2019


Well the obvious first. Pumping well W9 is still in the crapper. At least that is, the monthly pumping average was 3.4 litres per second while the Target Average was supposed to be 13.6 litres per second. The grand total pumping rate for all off-site wells was 68.5 l/sec which is excellent when compared to the last twenty-one years of off-site pumping. It is however pathetic when compared to the promises CPAC was given in November 2012 regarding what CRA and Chemtura felt was necessary to achieve the 2028 cleanup deadline.

On-site pumping well PW5 is also still below its Target pumping rate. This is a bad combination of pumping higher off-site and lesser on-site. This is exactly how on-site hydraulic containment can be lost resulting in heavily contaminated groundwater moving off-site.

For those not easily manipulated and fooled it has become increasingly obvious over the last thirty years that Uniroyal Chemical managed to grossly pollute private and public property to their west, east, south, and quite frankly as well north into Bolender Park whether from their own property or from disposing of their industrial wastes into the former Bolender Landfill.

Figure D.3 in Appendix D shows us exactly how little hydraulic containment there is for half the monitoring pairs in Lanxess's south-west corner. These pairs are comparing shallow groundwater levels in this corner with the elevation of corresponding surface water in the Creek ("Gig"). Two of the pairs have just over .2 metre difference in elevation and one pair has only a difference of less than .1 metre. As per the MOE's hydrogeologist (Cynthia Doughty) these water elevation differences are not adequate toi ensure that the shallow aquifer on the Lanxess site is not discharging into the Canagagigue Creek.

Appendix E shows us graphs of various key groundwater wells and far too many of these off-site wells continue to have concentrations of either/both NDMA and chlorobenzene above the Ontario drinking water standards. These include OW165-17 (NDMA above), CH-89B (NDMA above), CH-47E (both above) and CH-56B (both above). The first three are to the immediate west of Lanxess and the last is southwards near Union and First St.

Appendix F relates to NAPL monitoring near Building 15 on-site. This is the location of a massive leak (over time) that resulted in between 10,000 and 40,000 gallons of toluene floating on the water table. The thickness of this free product has generally diminished slowly over time although as recently as December 2017 it appears to heve been measured at MW13-07 at a thickness of .29 metres floating on the water table. That is still horrendous.

Appendix G also relates other various off-site monitoring results for NDMA and chlorobenzene. CH-68A has chlorobenzene at 210 parts per billion (ppb) and CH-70D has it at 380 ppb. The groundwater standard is 80 ppb. NDMA is measured at 22.2 ppb at OW-88B (R) and at OW58-24 at 32.59 ppb. This well while allegedly off-site I believe is right on Lanxess's western boundary. The criteria for NDMA in groundwater is .009 ppb. The prizewinner for off-site NDMA appears to be )W61-34 at 195 ppb. These are truly outrageous concentrations of toxic chemicals still off-site.

Appendix H reminds us of the extreme chlorobenzene contamination still on-site due to the presence of both free phase and residual DNAPLS (dense non aqueous phase liquids). There is 19,000 ppb chlorobenzene in the groundwater at OW88-19. This is all part and parcel of the decades old DNAPL coverup which was enabled by the company, their consultants, the Ontario MOE and as well by a couple of local citizens seeking status and approval by local authority figures.

Tuesday, October 22, 2019


First of all I can live with a Liberal minority government. Maybe I could even live with a minority Conservative government. Probably have before. I have never been a fan of majority governments. Basically somewhere around 34% of the voters get to choose 100% of the government. That is nuts.

We were promised proportional representation by Justin Trudeau after he won the last election. It sure looks and smells like a lie in hindsight. That form of electoral system rewards parties by the percentage of votes that they receive.

With our current system both the NDP and the Greens are underrepresented in Parliament in regards to the percentage of Canadians votes that they received. The Conservative Party is only slightly over represented with the seats they received whereas the Liberals are the big beneficiaries of our first past the post system.

In fact the Liberals actually did not win the highest percentage of Canadians votes yet they will form the government probably with assistance from the NDP on certain issues and legislation. What I read this morning suggests that the Liberals across Canada garnered somewhere around 33% of the popular vote whereas the Conservatives garnered 34% of the vote. Wow isn't that weird. Turns out that the Liberals won seats in many ridings fairly narrowly whereas the Conservatives won many seats with a huge majority of the available votes.

The last numbers I've seen have the Liberals at 157 seats, the Conservatives at 121, the Bloq Quebecois at 30, NDP at 24 and Greens at 3. I'm not certain that these are the final numbers and in fact I doubt they are as all evening the political analysts kept advising that 170 seats were necessary for a party to form a majority government.

Monday, October 21, 2019


Via the hard way I have learned that politics is inextricably entertwined with the environment. That is very bad because the vast majority of politicians know little or nothing about the environment yet they make all the decisions. Some of the parties make those decisions upon the alter of the economy, jobs, a balanced budget, and their own ideology.

In order of the political parties most dedicated to the environment and fixing it you have the Greens, the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives. If you are a single issue candidate your choice thus should be obvious. Of course most Canadians do worry about government deficits, foreign affairs, social justice issues, personal liberties etc. Then it gets much harder.

My inherent bias is to the left thus I have not and never would vote Conservative. I view them as owned by big money, corporations etc. That said I have friends who vote Conservative because they prefer smaller government, fewer services and lower taxes.

Folks however who strongly believe that government is there to help all their citizens, expect and demand government services for all including the less fortunate. They believe in full autism funding, good unemployment insurance, full and universal health coverage, honest workman's compensation for the injured etc. Now you are into New Democrat territory.

To my mind the Liberals have long been a compromise. Most Citizens don't lean as far to the right as Conservatives and they hope that the Liberals are more gentle and humane. My opinion is that they are a little but that they too have far too much corporate influence which is not good for the majority of Canadians.

In general I dislike politicians. Both Liberals and Conservatives left Omar Khadr blowing in the breeze as a fifteen year old involved through his father in radicalism. Both Liberals and Conservatives I believe think that Helmut Oberlander, in his 90s, should be stripped of his citizenship and be deported. Etc. That is not my kind of Canada.

Saturday, October 19, 2019


The first item under New Business is my written submission to TAG regarding overland flow of waste waters from the east side pits (RPE 1-5) that ended up in the Stroh Drain area and just east of it. I quote both volumes of waste waters as well as excuses and weasel words such as "seepage" and "intermittent flow" which are supposed to characterize approximately 165,000 Imperial Gallons Per Day (IGPD) being pumped across the Creek from the west side manufacturing facilities to the open pits, most sitting on clay. Both these reports as well as verbal claims by Uniroyal/Chemtura longtime employees indicate that furrows were ploughed in a north-south direction on the west side of the pits in order to funnel these liquid wastes southwards rather than let them flow westwards back into the Canagagigue Creek on the Uniroyal/Chemtura/Lanxess property.

The second item is an e-mail from CPAC member Ron Campbell dated September 6/19 which has a clarification in it from the public RAC meeting that presumably will be discussed.

The Detailed Discussion (section 4) will concern a Risk Assessment presentation as well as Lanxess responses to both MOE/MECP and TAG comments regarding Creek Contaminants of Concern and the draft Conceptual Site Model. I expect some pretty serious stickhandling here by Lanxess as the comments from both the MOE and TAG are very worthy and sharply to the point.

Section 5 of the Agenda will likely discuss the last three Progress Reports namely July, August, and September. Spoiler alert: there still is much more noise about "enhanced" off-site pumping and treating than is actually happening. Pumping well W9 is still not doing its thing or even close as per the September Progress Report. Also I might add that I sent Tiffany Svensson an e-mail two days ago quoting numbers from the June, July, and August Progress Reports that cast doubt upon GHD's NAPL responses to TAG and Tiffany's recent October 11, 2019 criticisms of the Creek Contaminants of Concern.

Friday, October 18, 2019


The TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting as usual will be held in Woolwich Council chambers on Church St. Following are my comments on yet another recently received written response from GHD, consultants to Lanxess Canada. GHD are responding to Tiffany Svensson's August 20/19 comments regarding "Contaminants of Potential Concern" as well as her comments on the "Draft Conceptual Site Model for the Canagagigue Creek. This letter/report is part of the Agenda for next week's TAG meeting.

As an aside: recently a concerned citizen commented here in regards to Tiffany's (TAG Chair) character, ethics etc. I believe that I responded in a generally positive, supportive way while at the same time not wholeheartedly endorsing her either for sainthood or for the world's best hydrogeologist award etc. This is because I have known her professionally only for just over two and a half years. I will add however that I am fast becoming a strong believer based upon her written comments and criticisms to GHD including this one about to be discussed. In my opinion her comments and criticisms in this report are accurate, technically sound, persuasive and probing.

TAG Comment 2 references the Stroh Drain and GHD have responded that yes they will be further assessing the Stroh Drain.

TAG Comment 3 advises that 23 different chemicals in soil samples on the Lanxess site were found to exceed various criteria yet only one of them was retained as a Contaminant of Potential Concern. GHD while using the 30 metres from the Creek rationale then suggests that that is not the only reason for dropping the other substances.

TAG Comment 6 relates to the longterm use of Lindane on site. GHD have indicated that lindane will be resonsidered as a Contaminant of Potential Concern.

TAG Comment 7 is a humdinger as I quote Tiffany: "So the final concluding statement is not accurate." This refers to GHD statements that most of the historical waste management units (HWMU) have been remediated plus they are hydraulically contained by the Upper Aquifer Containment System (UACS). Ms. Svensson disputes this and she is correct. "Closing" a HWMU is NOT remediating it! Also the UACS only contains the South-west corner of the site and as recently advised by MOE hydrogeologist Cynthia Doughty the UACS doesn't contain even the south-west corner all the time as it is supposed to.

TAG Comment 8 is in regards to toluene (in particular) mobilizing allegedly hydrophobic compounds such as DDT and dioxins. GHD denys that, claiming that concentrations of toluene in groundwater would have to be in the tens of thousands per million parts of water. They do not back up that assertion with anything and then they state that the presence of NAPL (non aqueous phase liquid i.e. toluene) has not been reported on site in the last ten years. Yesterday I sent Ms. Svensson a detailed report showing data that contradicts GHD's assertions.

In regards to the second report Tiffany is commenting on (i.e. CSM for the creek) TAG Comment 4 has Ms. Svensson again emphasizing that the Stroh Drain soils and sediments need to be exhaustively examined. Essentially GHD are agreeing at least for the moment.

TAG Comment 6 is in regards to a 1999 study about dioxins found in sheep and cattle from farms along the downstream Canagagigue Creek. Dioxins were indeed found in tissues and were particularly elevated in the livers of these animals. As usual little or nothing happened. GHD have responded that they will not be using or referencing this report in their Conceptial Site Model of the creek.

TAG & Ms. Svensson then comment on the 2017 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Floodplain Soil Investigation. 338 sediment samples were taken by the shovel method and only 24 by the more precise and accurate core method. GHD had claimed that the bottom of the creek was too hard to enable the superior coring method to be used. The problem with the shovel method is that it does not capture the fines of the gravel etc. as the coring method does. As the DDT and dioxins are attached to these fines they are lost via the shovel method. In my opinion this totally negates the value of this sampling and is shameful. Combined with the equally ridiculously high Method Detection Limits (MDL) it successfully has reduced the concentrations of contaminants found in the sediments. Junk science forever here in Elmira folks.

Thursday, October 17, 2019


I now better understand many of Cynthia Doughty's comments and criticisms in regards to the two recently released to me (& presumably some others) reports done by Lanxess Canada both written somewhere around January 2018. Keep in mind as Ms. Doughty criticized, the one report had no date on it although it was allegedly issued in February 2018.

Both these reports are informative. Giving Lanxess the benefit of the doubt one could suggest that wow, at long last we have a serious framework to get this cleanup of the Elmira Aquifers back on track. Their January 2018 document titled "Clean-Up Framework for the Off-Site Municipal Aquifer", while short of details as Ms. Doughty has stated, nevertheless does in a general sense point the way forward from where we are right now which is looking at the Elmira Aquifers not being clean or potable in 2028 as ordered by the MOE/MECP. Secondly Lanxess appear to be taking the recommendations of Dr. Richard Jackson seriously. He had advised the hiring of Dr. Neil Thompson (U. of Waterloo) to assist Lanxess/MOE with Conceptual Site Models (CSM) for both the Elmira Aquifers (i.e. the total stratigraphy or sub-surface) and a CSM for the Canagagigue Creek. Finally I believe that Dr. Thompson was also supposed to assist Lanxess/GHD in the development of treatment alternatives for the Elmira Aquifers.

Here however is the downside to what I've been reading. Despite both these documents being worthwhile and necessary, the huge question for me is why are they twenty years late? Also why are we reinventing the wheel? None of these technologies are brand new. They've been around for decades and some of them could have been used decades ago here in Elmira bringing us so much closer to having our local aquifers restored. I personally suggested that ISCO (In-Situ Chemical Oxidation) be used here back in 2009. CPAC at the time, Chemtura, CRA, and the Ontario MOE all ignored my verbal and written information. This despite the fact that the MOE had already approved the use of ISCO down the road in Cambridge, Ontario to remove chlorinated solvents from the Bishop St. site of Northstar Aerospace.

Then again with the last CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) from 2011 to 2015 we were treated to a mickey mouse attempt by Conestoga Rovers to do a field trial of ISCO near pumping well W3. Dr. Richard Jackson has since publicly commented on their efforts and his criticisms make my words seem nice in comparison.

I see belatedly some hope here although it is dampened by the three decades plus history of deceit by the parties in charge. How can any honest and unbiased person have any confidence in the words, verbal or written, of these parties? What they do or don't do weighs a thousand times heavier with me than what they will ever promise to do.

Wednesday, October 16, 2019


Last evening I received the two documents that I referred to here two days ago (Monday Oct. 14/19). Credit can be given to Lisa Schaefer, RAC & TAG Support Person, for her timely e-mailing of these two documents after I requested them. Obviously it seems that being a stakeholder and citizen with a very long history of active participation (30 years) in UPAC, CPAC, RAC and TAG as much as regressive public consultation allows (especially for RAC & TAG), and posting six days out of seven here for nearly the last decade combined with now having written the definitive book on Uniroyal Chemical, Elmira's groundwater contamination and the flawed process to remediate it, none of this automatically entitles me or any other involved citizen to receive major, foundational documents. Therefore clearly it is my fault for not having imagined the possibilities of these two documents being written and issued to other parties nearly two years ago and hence my having asked for them by name at that time using my superior psychic powers and unparalled experience. Shame on me.

On Monday I advised readers that Ms. Doughty (MOE) strongly criticized a number of items in the two reports issued/written in January and February 2018. With Item 12. she was particularly insistent that Lanxess and their consultants GHD would NOT be revising the remedial objectives for the Elmira Aquifers for any reason. While I have not read the fourty pages worth of these two new (to me) reports yet, I have however seen the first page of the one in which Lanxess are strongly hinting at doing exactly that. Hence Ms. Doughty's comments.

I have long forecast this happening. If Lanxess/GHD can't make the cleanup to Ontario Drinking Water Standards then they will "succeed" by adjusting expectations or criteria or the deadline or amending the Control Order or whatever they need to do in order to get the win. And when push comes to shove do you really think the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation & Parks will put their foot down? Please.

Tuesday, October 15, 2019


On-Site Pumping i.e. Municipal Aquifer (MA) pumping on the former Uniroyal Chemical site (now Lanxess Canada)

Prior to any off-site pumping at all (started in July 1998), the on-site pumping was not competing against or pulling against any other pumping thus they were pumping at a small 2.4 litres per second on the site. After 1998 however and the start of off-site pumping, in order to prevent loss of on-site containment, greater on-site pumping was required. Generally the on-site total pumping in the MA was around 4.4 litres per second. By 2009 and after the disastrous lack of pumping in 2008, the on-site pumping was routinely around 5.3 litres per second. This allegedly was high enough to maintain hydraulic containment on-site despite the competing pumping off-site. Of course we had been promised 6.0 litres on-site by Jeff Merriman of Chemtura but that never happened.

By the end of 2014 a monthly average of 6.0 litres per second may have occurred a half a dozen times or so in the previous few years. Mostly however on-site pumping was a fairly respectable 5.6 litres per second. Both 2015 and 2016 maintained on-site pumping in the 5.7 to 5.8 l/sec range. Then in 2017 things started to slip slightly. By 2018 however and through 2019 to date pumping has regressed to the 4.7 to 5.1 l/sec range. Not good!

Off-site pumping was very poor especially late in 2007 due to the proposed ammonia treatment system (ATS). Until November 2008 and the completion of the ATS off-site pumping was disgraceful. The MOE/MECP moaned slightly but did nothing else. The year 2009 saw pumping rates for the first time exceed 60 litres per second for four of the twelve months. 2010 had five months exceed 60 l/sec. 2011 had three months exceed 60 l/sec however with the other nine months plummeting into the 30s to 40s l/sec. The first half of 2012 was very bad although then five of the last six months exceeded 60 l/sec. 2013 and 2014 pumping rates were all over the place with three months each year exceeding 60 l/sec and nine months being in the 40s and 50s l/sec.

2015 finally saw a stabilization in pumping rates with eight months exceeding 60 l/sec. Keep in mind the excuses/reasons and promises for the future were neverending from CRA/Chemtura as to what was going on. Regardless at 60 + l/sec average monthly pumping rates the companty was still miles away from the November 2012 promises to CPAC and the public of a tripling of the off-site pumping rates from 52 l/sec to approx. 150 l/sec. 2016 and 2017 off-site pumping rates by comparison were the best and most consistent ever. Ten months in 2016 and eleven months in 2017 exceeded 60 l/sec average monthly pumping.

The first eight months of 2018 were mediocre to poor with pumping rates finally again exceeding 60 l/sec for the last four months of the year. 2019 with the exception of February has been by comparison the best ever with monthly averages for the first time exceeding 70 l/sec in May and June and the other months to the end of August exceeding 60 l/sec.

Stating that pumping rates continue to rise and fall like a toilet seat is accurate. Also the fact that on-site pumping does not appear to be rising as off-site rates rise is problematic. Are we pumping greater amounts of past contamination out of the Elmira Aquifers or are we drawing on-site contamination off-site and then pumping it as well?

Monday, October 14, 2019


I am referring to Ministry hydrogeologist, Cynthia Doughty in the title above. Perhaps"unhappy" is a little inaccurate. She is however strongly criticizing two Lanxess Canada documents both issued in February 2018 (YES 18!!!!) and obviously written earlier.

Ms. Doughty begins by advising that the second document dealing with potential Enhanced Technologies for the Lanxess site in Elmira, Ontario is unsigned and with no company name (consultants?) provided. She is clearly unimpressed with that. The first document that she is commenting on is a Clean-Up Framework for the Off-Site Municipal Aquifer. That document "...refers to section numbers; however, there are no section numbers in the document." Again it is my interpretation that she is unimpressed with that kind of amateur hour (my words) effort.

I have a little (ha!) beef of my own. Having read both the titles of these more than a year and half old crucial documents to the ongoing and constantly behind schedule "cleanup" of the off-site aquifers and having carefully read Ms. Doughty's comments/criticisms, it is my belief that I have never received those two documents. Well if so that's yet one more indictment of what passes for public consultation these days in Elmira, Ontario. I have sent a polite e-mail to the TAG/RAC Support person (Lisa) asking her to send me (belatedly?) those documents.

Ms. Doughty is also clearly unimpressed with the details or lack thereof in these two documents. Her words include (Pg. 2)"Additional details would be necessary...", "Additional information should be provided.", (pg. 3) "Additional explanation is required...", "There is insufficient information provided...", (pg. 4) "Additional details are required...".

We are advised that Lanxess and their consultants GHD are considering additional extraction wells, injection wells, and directed groundwater recirculation, whatever that might be. Ms. Doughty also would like more details and timelines for this potential new remediation method. There is also a Flowchart provided in the first document that indicates that in-situ technologies are back on the burner to be considered. Truly amazing. Both myself in 2009 and Dr. Richard Jackson in 2016 tried to get Chemtura/CRA to take this methodology seriously.

These two reports as well as Ms. Doughty make references to the actual criteria to determine when the aquifers have achieved cleanup. The old CPAC (2011-2015) and particularly Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach and Dr. Dan Holt pushed the MOE/MECP hard for this information. The MOE/MECP once again gave a future date to present this criteria that is now long past without fulfilling their promise.

On the last page, item 12. of Ms. Doughty's critique she in no uncertain terms advises Lanxess that the remedial objectives will NOT be revised based upon remedial technologies selected. Similarly settling upon unambiguous cleanup criteria will NOT revise the remedial objectives.

It is clear that Ms. Doughty is not satisfied with Lanxess's efforts in these two documents. Only time will tell how much Lanxess improve upon them. As always the public are the losers when both guilty parties literally spend years talking back and forth about remediation that is already years behind schedule.

Saturday, October 12, 2019


Today's Waterloo Region Record's Editorial is a blunt in your face call to both our provincial and federal governments for real action regarding occupational health and safety issues as well as the compensation system for workers in this country. The Record acknowledge a small step forward with the most recent local 31 compensation cases being accepted but it is still far too little far too late. The Record are also advising that their preference is the gold standard, nation wide Royal Commission in regards to a public inquiry. Clearly the response for decades has been to minimize the effects of carcinogenic chemicals on the human body at local rubber factories in Kitchener-Waterloo such as Epton's, Uniroyal, B.F. Goodrich, Dominion Tire etc.

There is no shortage of studies indicating that Canadian workers have long been exposed to chemicals such as benzene, lead, asbestos, wood dust, diesel fumes etc. While many of our local industries have closed their doors and are no longer poisoning workers, can we be confident that it is not continuing either elsewhere or even here in different industries? The Record's Editorial is titled "Rubber workers' plight should inspire nationwide action".

Friday, October 11, 2019


Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following story titled "Energy from trash? What's next for Waterloo's landfill". This story is written by Adam Jackson of the Waterloo Chronicle. Among many items, Mr. Jackson advises the readers about the existence of many closed landfills in Waterloo Region from Kitchener, Cambridge, Ayr, North Dumfries, and Woolwich Townships. He also advises of all the problems that have occurred at the former Ottawa St. Landfill site in Kitchener. At least that is he mentions the settling of garbage beneath the ground covering causing proken sub-surface pipes as well as damage to the skate park. He did not mention the horrific abandonment of homes around the landfill in the 1970s for decades due to methane leakage into their basements causing massive risks of fires and explosions.

Mr. Jackson as well as Region of Waterloo officials understate the environmental damages caused by our past burial of garbage. The fact is that improved methane collection as well as leachate collection from landfills does nothing to improve soil, ground and surface water contamination that occurred prior to any collection methods being implemented at most of these landfills. Also the fact is that not all of our former dumps have even been retrofitted (after the fact) with collection systems. They all should have been done so, decades ago. My opinion is that regional politicians would rather spend our money on sexy, vote getting projects such as the ION trains. Legacy projects to burnish political credentials usually do little for the general public.

Thursday, October 10, 2019


Today's Record carries the following story titled "Waterloo resident concerned about health of trees in neighbourhood". A resident of Westvale Drive on the west side of Waterloo is concerned by the numbers of dead or dying trees on her street. Westvale is a circular shaped street next to the Erb St. Landfill. That landfill has been there since the 1970s and there were not initially proper leachate controls in place. They were retrofitted I'm guessing somewhere in the mid to late 1990s. The landfill was also originally scheduled for about a 20 year lifespan but just like gravel pits, once situated, they are difficult to shut down especially if the local government claims there are no alternatives.

The story indicates that the trees having problems are "Big ones, little ones, deciduous, evergreens." Despite that Tim Wolfe of the Region of Waterloo suggests that almost all the dead or ailing trees are ash trees affected by the emerald ash borer. So which is it folks?

The Region also suggests that more than 500 groundwater monitoring wells in and around the landfill "...are tested routinely to ensure nothing is migrating into the ground." My bullshit meter began loudly beeping after reading that. Nobody has 500 monitoring wells anywhere on the planet to ensure that nothing is migrating. They had groundwater contamination on that site years before they installed the first monitoring well and the next 499 are to determine exactly what contaminants at what concentrations are migrating where. Years to decades ago there were stories in the Record describing contaminant plumes (groundwater) migrating from this landfill site. Add to that years of embarassing lack of enforcement including drums of liquid solvents being dumped into this landfill courtesy of Varnicolor Chemical in Elmira. That story was also in the Record decades ago.

Long story short: our authorities seem to believe that they have a duty, a right, and an obligation to sugarcoat inconvenient truths that might upset the public.

Wednesday, October 9, 2019


Jim Brophy, a University of Windsor professor is calling for a national inquiry into work and health conditions inside factories and plants. Dr. Brophy has studied occupational disease for more than thirty years. He stated that there is a lack of recognition by the compensation system regarding occupational diseases and that the recent, ongoing rubber workers issues and stories in Kitchener-Waterloo cry out for change and improvement. Today's story in the Waterloo Region Record is titled "A matter of national importance" and is the lead story on the front page. At least that is the title on my copy of today's Record delivered to my door. Unfortunately the Record routinely amend their story titles after the fact so on-line it is likely something different.

Back on July 23/19 I posted a story about the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB) on my other blog, the Waterloo Region Advocate. My posting certainly was not very complimentary about the WSIB (formerly Workman's Compensation i.e. WCB). Even then a public inquiry was being called in relation to the WSIB's penchant for dismissing legitimate claims. Today's story in the Record indicates that 30 new claims out of a possible 300 have been accepted by the Board. My only wish is that every bastard in a position of authority at the WCB should have to spend at least a week working in those conditions. I have done it and much more and they aren't pleasant but to later find out that they have killed you is even worse.

Tuesday, October 8, 2019


I'm about to assist all the reading and time challenged folks who prefer to have the hits come hard and fast at them when they are reading, by a very quick summary of the last three chapters posted on-line of "Elmira Water Woes: The Triumph Of Corruption, Deceit, And Citizen Betrayal". These are chapters nineteen through twenty-one. They can be accessed at or simply Google waterloo region advocate.

Chapter Nineteen is the funniest one. Considering that my book is not remotely supposed to be intended to make people feel good about what's happened here in Elmira, how can this be? It is because I have included a number of already published cartoons that in my opinion lampoon both institutions, individuals, and really bad political ideas. To my mind cartoons through humour often get their political and or environmental points across much better and much faster than either preaching or long winded text. These cartoons in my opinion are excellent and the credit for both understanding the issues and then making the readers laugh at the absurdity of our authorities behaviour and words all belongs to the author of them.

Chapter twenty is a devastating critique of the long time consultants to Uniroyal/Crompton, Chemtura etc., the Ontario Ministry of Environment, and the socially irresponsible polluter. It is not my words that are quoted but rather the words of Dr. Richard Jackson, TAG Chair, publicly spoken (and recorded) at TAG meetings between September 2015 and his final TAG meeting in December 2016.

Chapter twenty-one I feel is a devastating critique of the Woolwich council between 2015 and 2018. I emphasize the time frame because although there are still some guilty members on the current council, there are also two new and improved members. This chapter quotes at length the reactions of multiple local media in Waterloo Region to the public and abominable behaviour of Woolwich Council in trying to shut down citizen environmental activists here in Woolwich Township.

Happy reading!

Monday, October 7, 2019


Way back in early 1995, the Elmira Independent was the sole newspaper in town. Yes they had won a Michener Award for both the paper's and Roddy Turpin's coverage of Uniroyal Chemical and the Elmira water crisis. They deserved it even though the K-W Record had covered both Uniroyal and Varnicolor Chemical pollution as well.

That said there was substantial criticism of Bob Verdun, half the ownership team of the Independent. Bob was viewed as too loud, perhaps too radical, and certainly too critical of local power structures and authority. Unsurprisingly it was these local power structures, businesses, polluters, and Woolwich councillors who were most critical. Even Bob's supporters occasionally wished that he had been a tad more diplomatic. Personally I looked at the big picture and had no difficulty whatsoever in admiring Bob's defense of the public interest.

Along came the Woolwich Observer. I know that somehow or someone had suggested to me that this new newspaper was being either promoted, sponsered or enabled by the various critics of Bob Verdun's Elmira Independent. Maybe among other names whispered to me was that of local entrepreneur and businessman, Donny Martin. Here's the rub. Damned if I can remember now who or how many made that suggestion to me. It seemed to make sense at the time because there was widespread criticism and unhappiness with Mr. Verdun by some. That seeming to make sense at the time however does not make it so.

For me the proof was in the pudding. The Woolwich Observer jumped into all the local issues including Uniroyal Chemical and the poisoning of the Elmira Aquifers. They jumped into development plans whether for subdivisions or for gravel pits. They freely criticized our local council at will. Whatever their backing they had some smart cookies on the team and they added dramatically to the local coverage of important issues.

Yes I miss the Elmira Independent, Gail Martin, Julie Sawyer, and all the gang over the decades. I only hope that our sole remaining newspaper is with us for many more decades.

Saturday, October 5, 2019


You know, while it's been in the back of my mind for a few years now, this straight up, in your face, no apologies article may be the first I've read in our local paper. The article is titled "Strike against climate change must include strike against cars". Sure it's a radical suggestion as far as Canadians changing their lifestyles but holy crap, do any of us any longer believe that the results of climate change are not going to radically change how we live?

The article in today's Waterloo Region Record is written by Jonathan Klassen, a fifth year general arts student at the University iof Waterloo. Mr. Klassen's recommendations make serious sense. They include greater emphasis on providing car, van and truck rentals. This I suspect would immediately reduce our spur of the moment jumping in the car to save five minutes walking to the corner store etc. Dramatically increase the numbers and frequency of buses through residential areas. This is the carrot approach and likely would increase public transit ridership dramatically. Thirdly create pedestrian only zones. He suggests that the Kitchener core bordered by Cedar St., Duke, Victoria and Joseph/Church St. should prohibit all traffic except for emergency vehicles, bikes and the Ion.

Mr. Klassen has other suggestions all of which make a lot more sense to me now than they did even a decade ago. Am I at the age of seventy prepared to voluntarily give up my car? Hell no although a big part of that is much less comfortable walking than I was blessed with for six decades plus. Nevertheless when I look at the coming crisis and compare comfort to survival of not only me but of younger generations, then I have to pause and reconsider.

Friday, October 4, 2019


As I have indicated many times over the last decade I am not particularly computer literate. That is despite a short stint as a computer operator many, many, decades ago at the former Dominion Life Assurance Co. in Waterloo. It is also despite actually having taken a computer programming course way back in Grade 12 when I was but seventeen years old. I can mostly handle word processing, e-mails, posting on my Blogs and looking for technical groundwater documents on-line courtesy of Dr. Google. Both my kids and my wife are far more advanced in navigating just about everything to do with the modern home/office computer.

I have had a few format challenges putting my book onto my "Waterloo Region Advocate" blog. These especially have included the posting of maps or pictures onto my on-line book. They were much easier putting them into my hard copy (written) format of my book. Nevertheless with assistance I seem to be getting the job done.

The above title of my book (EWW:TTOCDACB) was not without discussion and debate. One line of thought was that the title was too negative. It implied that the "bad" guys won. Well in fact, in my opinion, they have to date clearly done so. In fact I think that citizens need merely look around at the ongoing climate emergency while we are still spending money on oil and gas pipelines and other non-renewable petroleum extraction to understand that as long as there is money to be made by the already wealthy, then our politicians and authorities will continue to do so up until the day before the apocalypse. I mean surely the very well off have the right to attempt to take it with them, don't they?

Currently the first fifteen chapters of my book are on-line. The revelations and evidence collected and presented should shock most uninformed citizens. It should even shock locals here in Elmira, Ontario who think that they have kept up to date over the last thirty years. For example APT members who have faithfully read every Elmira Independent story until their closing in August 2015 will be reasonably well informed. That said the last four years plus have been crucial to the cleanup both on and off the Uniroyal/Lanxess property as well as for the downstream Canagagigue Creek.

My book may be found at or simply Google waterloo region advocate. The most recent chapters posted will come up first. By using the Archive Section on the right side of the page you can go back to mid September when the first chapters were posted.

Thursday, October 3, 2019


There was one new person at yesterday's LPAT meeting namely Mr. Berton (sp?) representing Preston Sand & Gravel (PSG). Meanwhile Jeff Wilker is also still part of the legal team for PSG. The LPAT chair, Mr. Wilkens (sp ?), advised that costs can be assigned to any party at the hearing who demonstrate unreasonable behaviour. Apparently the inherently unreasonable behaviour of PSG getting a gravel pit license under false pretenses (i.e. above water table application) only to follow it up shortly afterwards with a below water table application is exempt from that standard.

Kevin Thompson, lawyer for Woolwich, advised that currently Woolwich Township have four peer reviews of PSG reports underway including Traffic, Cultural Heritage, Dust, and Air. Cultural Heritage is the slowest one, not expected for two or three more months.

Eric Davis representing five Conestogo and Winterbourne residents suggested a telephone conference call (TCC) a few weeks down the road to further clear up issues on the issues list as well as to discuss the draft procedural order. His party are mostly interested in noise and cultural heritage matters.

The LPAT Chair has put forth a tentative hearing date of November 9, 2020 for a three week hearing. The final date of the hearing will be December 1, 2020. The proposed TCC will be on October 22, 2019 at 9 am. Only the parties may speak however the public and participants can listen in by phoning 866 6330848 . There is a code needed which we were advised was 8382912. The parties wish to confirm the Issues List, Draft Procedural Order and the hearing date itself.

Of some concern to me was Mr. Berton's twice making the point that the Jigs Hollow Pit is already a licensed pit and hence there is very little substantive matters to discuss. I don't think so regarding the damn proposed lake beside the Grand River caused by the massive below water table excavations proposed.

The last item discussed was a new LPAT rule restricting oral presentations from participants. This new rule came into effect after the participants had already obtained their status as such.

This hearing certainly appears to be a long ways away and I have my doubts as to the final result.

Wednesday, October 2, 2019


The LPAT (Local Planning Area Tribunal) pre-hearing continues this morning at 10 am. in Woolwich Council Chambers. The last meeting was on July 11/19 and certain omissions of notice were admitted to by the Woolwich Township lawyer. Hence the need for another pre-hearing. That at least was my understanding as today may identify either more parties or more participants. There is a write up here in the Advocate for the last meeting (July 11) that can be accessed through the Archives on the right side of the page.

The overall reason for the hearing is Preston Sand & Gravel's (PSG) wish to get a decision from Woolwich as to whether or not they will remove their holding provision on the Jigs Hollow Gravel Pit just outside Winterbourne and between Winterbourne and Conestogo. The holding provision states that Preston Sand & Gravel may not excavate below the water table on this site beside the Grand River. Many years ago local citizens advised everybody that the proposed pit should not be approved because there was not enough gravel above the water table for the pit to be economically viable. Lo and behold a few short years later and PSG are back requesting to be allowed to go below the water table because the pit otherwise is not economically viable. This is the kind of horse.... that citizens face constantly when dealing with gravel companies, OMB in the past, Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) etc.

Tuesday, October 1, 2019


Susan Bryant sent a Letter To The Editor of the Elmira Independent that was published on September 19, 2013. I would characterize the Letter as being excellent. Susan refers to the scraping of soil off the top of one (GP-1) of the two pits only as a duct-tape solution and she is correct. She advises that the dioxin levels in the soil are the highest concentrations found anywhere in the Great lakes basin. She also advises as to their toxicity and to ongoing legacy of birth defects in Vietnam because of American dioxins exported to them during the American War on Vietnam via agent Orange spraying.

Susan is also concerned about the likelihood of big floods taking more of these dioxins (and DDT) downstream. She is disappointed in all levels of government for not pressing Chemtura to remove more of the dioxins. Finally she does actually complement not only the former CPAC at the time upon which she was a member but also the current CPAC (late 2010 until September 2015) of which she was not a member. She also gets a plug in for the APT Chemtura Committee which was a totally private, on Chemtura site only, get together.