Friday, January 31, 2020



The above Notice was published three days ago in the Waterloo Regional Record and as well I believe I saw it yesterday in the Woolwich Observer. The title is the Rationalization of the Boundaries for Elmira, St. Jacobs, and Breslau. Quite frankly I get fed up when I see politicians, consultants, polluters etc. constantly using words like rationalization, optimization etc. Generally speaking their plans are neither optimizing nor rationalizing anything of benefit to the public. They are optimizing and rationalizing benefits for a very few often at the expense of the public.

The Public Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday February 19, 2020 at 5 pm. in Regional Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 150 Frederick St. Kitchener. What I am most interested in is the finalizing/rationalizing of the boundaries of the "Elmira Township Urban Areas". Allegedly "This change is intended to redirect growth to areas that can be developed more efficiently and cost-effectively on full municipal services." Frankly I believe that that is complete hogwash particularly in regards to the proposed new Elmira Urban Area.

As per the map included with the Public Notice one can see that the plan is to redirect industrial, commercial, and possibly (God help us) residential growth to the east side of Elmira. At the north end of Elmira, the old east side boundary was the Uniroyal Chemical now Lanxess Canada property line. The expanded area further east will include parts of the Stroh farm as well as the Martin farm to the immediate south of the Stroh farm. South of the Martin farm are more agricultural properties which will be impacted.

One of the two biggest problems are the increased flooding in the Canagagigue Creek as it travels south and then primarily east past the Uniroyal Chemical property. The extent of past flooding much less increased future flooding on the east side of Elmira will make everything from road and bridge construction to building construction more costly. The next problem is the apparent intentional hiding and burying of toxic wastes from Uniroyal Chemical currently on the Stroh and Martin properties. These wastes include but are not remotely limited to dioxin/furans, DDT, PCBs, mercury, and lindane. Clear and compelling evidence exists that these toxic liquid wastes flowed from Uniroyal Chemical onto the two east side neighbouring farms. A limited and superficial cleanup of a small part of the Stroh farm took place in 2018. That cleanup at least acknowledged the presence of dioxins/furans and DDT above all provincial and federal guidelines and criteria on the Stroh farm.

To date Lanxess, their consultants GHD, and the Ontario MOE/MECP have refused to do soil testing further south on the Stroh farm. They also have not done to my knowledge any soil testing on the Martin farm. They are terrified, in my opinion, of the results they will find. And of course they are terrified of the costs to clean it all up. I have long suggested that there has been government corruption at various levels involved in the environmental disaster that unfolded here in Elmira. There most certainly has been corruption involved in the failed government "supervised" cleanup over the last thirty years. Incompetence can only be blamed for so long. To my eyes this "rationalization" by our municipal government is but one more step in the corruption process. Decisions that are made for private interests by government rather than made for the public interest are corrupt decisions.

Thursday, January 30, 2020


The event was held at Lions Hall in Elmira last evening at 7:30 pm. I would describe it as a very low key event. A few staff from Bio-En were present as was Mr. Chuck Martin, owner. There were many poster boards erected around the hall with descriptions of various aspects of the business. They were helpful and informative. Even more so were the staff present as was Chuck Martin. He answered all my questions as thoroughly as possible and was straightforward about some of the less pleasant aspects of some of the raw materials used to produce methane (such as diapers). Turns out they are not a particularly productive source of methane as there is too much diaper and not enough .... .

I would estimate that during my presence there might have been an additional half a dozen citizens present as well. Some had been involved with the earlier mediation (2012) with the company that resulted in a number of citizen friendly amendments such as regular meetings between a citizens' committee and the company. Sort of a good news/bad news scenario as the committee meets very infrequently now although Mr. Martin advised that the company will meet with them whenever they want. Apparently there generally is a lack of issues and problems which obviously is a good thing.

The company are looking to expand and on the face of it that is both normal and appropriate. The remaining citizens who are less than happy about that say that it's all about location and truck traffic. They are right that the downtown and the Arthur St./Church St. intersection is overcrowded. The other huge issue for them (and should be for all of us?) is air emissions. Diesel fumes are not good for anybody's health. I did hear one citizen last evening very bluntly telling a company staffer that their incoming and outgoing trucks are already exacerbating toxic air emissions and hence no they should not be allowed to expand on that. The citizen is right but I do not know how under current rules, regulations and laws that that could be enforced essentially by penalizing one company out of the hundreds (?) who contribute to the problem.

Wednesday, January 29, 2020


A couple of days ago I mentioned here in the Advocate some off-site groundwater pumping issues during December 2019. They were not as bad as the November off and on-site pumping failures.

580, 470, 310 Those numbers are the concentrations (parts per billion i.e. ug/l) of chlorobenzene, toluene, and carboxin in groundwater being pumped by on-site well PW5 (municipal aquifer) as well as the upper aquifer wells. Sort of. On-site well PW5 sometimes goes through the same treatment train and other times joins numerous off-site wells for treatment in building 44D. It is concentrations like these and higher which produce anxiety for the future of the Elmira Aquifers with this contamination merely "hydraulically contained" by ongoing and allegedly never ending groundwater pumping.

Lindane and aniline concentrations are decreasing in MISA outlets to the Canagagigue Creek from Lanxess Canada. Ammonia, carboxin and phenolics are not. MISA stands for municipal industrial strategy for abatement. These outlets are supposed to be for cooling and storm water but unfortunately they seem to have been somewhat infiltrated by contaminated groundwater.

Table C.2 continues to mystify with some chemicals having higher Lanxess downstream concentrations of contaminants while others have higher upstream of Lanxess concentrations. Of course if the public, including the most informed public, had the ability to request clarification of the company at public RAC or TAG meetings then perhaps these anomalies could be explained. Only perhaps because colourful and creative narratives are still being handed out at these public meetings by the company and their consultants.

Figure D.1 shows the alleged Surficial Aquifer on Lanxess's north-east corner. The flow direction arrows are still incorrect as even the text in their report admits to flow off-site to the east. It would be nice if they could adjust this Figure to correlate with both their text and with reality. I spent years proving that they were wrong on the east side of their site and no they don't have to acknowledge my contribution but at least acknowledge consu=istently the facts that I proved.

Appendix F may have some real good news although it is hard to have confidence with anything presented by this company and their predecessors on the site. Appendix F appears to show declining levels of Non Aqueous Phase Liquids (primarily Light Napls versus Dense Napls) in shallow wells around Building 15. This of course is the building from which 10,000 to 40,000 gallons of toluene leaked decades ago and which Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess all felt that serious cleanup would be too onerous. Instead they went back to the tried, true, slow, and less expensive pumping and treating. The real question is how much of this was collected and treated versus discharged either as dissolved or as free phase liquids into the creek.

P.S. to date Lanxess appear unwilling to provide any new date by which they feel they will have restored the Elmira Aquifers to drinking water standards. The old date of 2028 is universally confirmed as not going to happen.

Tuesday, January 28, 2020


Yes this is the case where the officer shot Sammy Yatin eight times while he was on a streetcar by himself clearly experiencing some form of mental/emotional breakdown. Forcillo's first three shots hit the young man and he collapsed on the streetcar. After several seconds Officer Forcillo opened fire six more times hitting the already prone and dying Yatim with five of those six followup shots. Yatim was alone on the streetcar. He was not advancing on any of the multiple officers present. He was not an imminent threat to anyone but himself. Officer Forcillo remarkably was convicted of attempted murder despite Mr. Yatim dying from his gunshot wounds all inflicted by Officer Forcillo. All of these facts are undisputed due to multiple video evidence at the scene which was later broadcast to the public.

Of academic interest only is the actions of another officer who immediately after the multiple shooting of Yatim ran to the body and tasered it. One must assume that that officer was preparing the excuse for the shooting by allowing either Officer Forcillo or his superiors to be able to claim that gee we tasered Mr. Yatim but as that wasn't effective we had to shoot him. Not a good day for police credibility on any front.

Officer Forcillo received a six year prison sentence for attempted murder but served only twenty months. He was granted early parole and according to Peter Rosenthal, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto, his actions post conviction alone should have disqualified him from so doing. These included a conviction for perjury as well as for violating his bail conditions.

The title of this article in the January 24/20 Waterloo Region Record is "Early parole for Forcillo sends terrible message to public, police".

Monday, January 27, 2020


Well first of all let's have some upcoming dates. TAG + another Webinar are on February 6 and February 27, 2020 at 6:30 pm. The Webinars will again be about Risk Assessments. In my opinion these Webinars describe what either Risk Assessments or Site Specific Risk Assessments are supposed to be, not what they end up being in the hands of self-interested parties in charge of them. Lastly there is a RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) scheduled for April 2/20 at 6 pm.

Linda Dickson of TAG (Technical Advisory Group) discussed the November and December Progress Reports. She indicated the pumping problems in November with off-site pumping wells W6B, W9 and with on-site pumping well PW4. By December the on-site well PW4 was back up and running although the same off-site wells as November were not. Linda indicated that the just off-site Sentry wells to the west of Lanxess had increasing concentrations of chlorobenzene and NDMA due to the loss of on-site hydraulic containment occasioned by PW4 not operating in November.

There has been a new suggestion by GHD that "pulse pumping" of E7 may improve the removal of contamination in surrounding soils. It appears as if they discovered this by accident which I don't find particularly confidence inspiring. After a couple of slowdowns in pumping well E7 at the south end of Elmira, they found that the following month more contaminant mass was removed than normal. The theory is that stop and start pumping may somehow accelerate contaminant mass removal. Of course as usual there was absolutely no technical reports or literature distributed to back up these claims. Is this just more junk science and psuedo science? Is this just an excuse for them to get away with decreased pumping at E7 along with so many other pumping wells? Hard to say. Time will usually tell although the cost is usually way too high. Both Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach and Linda of TAG wanted to know why TAG were not informed sooner about this new pumping routine.

Saturday, January 25, 2020


I've said it before and I'll say it again. I believe that the majority of TAG members are good, honest and decent people. Since the very first UPAC (Uniroyal Public Advisory Committee) in January 1992 there have always been one, two or three individuals with self-serving agendas and a willingness to make deals not always in the public interest. Heck we even had one such member foisted upon the best CPAC ever (2010 - Aug.2015) for a while. This current TAG now not only have honest individuals but they also have experts involved with David, Katerina and Dustin. No offense intended to the other members who are strong in their own right. There is however still a problem although the blame does not lie with the TAG members. I have been noticing a disquieting trend of late. The one TAG member of questionable deal making and inappropriate support for Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess has not been assisting appropriately with historical questions that arise. Last evening was yet another example with her question as to whether or not well PW4 was the only on-site deep (municipal aquifer) pumping well. I spoke up from the gallery, contrary to the corrupt and discriminatory Woolwich rules, and assisted Susan on that question and advised her (& TAG) that there were currently two on-site deep pumping wells namely PW4 and PW5. This information at my fingertips was confirmed several minutes later when Linda Dickson read the same from one of the monthly Progress Reports.

My shock arose from the fact that if one is keeping abreast of current Elmira/Lanxess affairs then one reads the monthly Progress Reports which month in and month out specifically states that there are two on-site wells (PW4 & PW5) above and beyond the multiple Upper Aquifer wells. What the heck is going on? Now none of the other members, or Chair, appeared able to answer the question. Certainly even the new hydrogeologists on TAG did not seem to have that basic information at their fingertips. This lack of first hand historical facts and data certainly is inevitable but not yet. I also hesitate to suggest that age is affecting anyone's memory especially Susan as she and I are of the same age. That said yes I freely admit that my memory at age 70 is not the almost photographic memory it once was. It seems clear that the removal of myself and other CPAC and SWAT members in late 2015 was intentionally done to remove historical knowledge and perspectives as well as to assist Chemtura/Lanxess in avoiding dealing with or even acknowledging their past failures.

Jaimie Peznick (sp.?) of Lanxess presented to TAG the new Worst Case Scenario. For many years the Worst Case Scenario has been a large release of Anyhdrous Ammonia. That compound is no longer being used on site. The new Worst Case Scenario is a major fire at one of their tank farms. These tank farms are concrete areas with large usually vertical tanks on them containing various toxic chemicals that are used in Lanxess's production processes. When these chemicals catch fire, and solvents are notoriously flammable, they produce toxic smoke. The actual toxicity is unknown until after a fire and after air samples taken in the smoke plume have been analysed and then studied. Even then the toxicity is highly subjective based upon air criteria, just like water and soil criteria, being based upon the false scenario of only one toxic contaminant at a time being found in the medium (air, water, soil).

Joe Kelly, Susan Bryant and Tiffany Svensson all had input regarding two recent reports dealing with the Canagagigue Creek. These were the Revised Conceptual Site Model for the creek and the Re-Evaluation of Canagagigue Creek Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC). Joe emphasized the mealy mouthed wording such as the constant use of "may have", "maybe", "may require", "not associated with historic conditions" etc. He also criticized Lanxess denying the possibility that the PCBs in the creek came from their site which used to have a sub-station (hydro?) on their property with PCBs likely in the ballasts and perhaps transformers. Susan spoke at length about the insecticide lindane which was used for decades at Uniroyal and corporate successors. It is a highly toxic chemical and Lanxess's marginalization of it's significance in the Creek is inappropriate. Susan also discussed false claims by Lanxess regarding the extent of remediation of a number of former toxic waste pits on site. Tiffany suggested that she found too many comments and conclusion by Lanxess's consultants minimizing the severity of the environmental problems with little or no scientific backup. In other words the text in places was much too subjective versus being objective. This minimizing specifically is in regards to the number and variety of contaminants of potentail concern in the Creek.

This is the bulk of Thursday evening's meeting although Linda Dickson spoke at length about the November and December (2019) Progress Reports. I may include that in Monday's posting here.

Friday, January 24, 2020


TAG - Technical Advisory Group

We were presented with a 40 minute Webinar (web based seminar) last evening. Despite my critical comments here beforehand, in fact the Webinar was very informative. It did start off however very clearly advising that polluters have two options. Option 1 is to remediate the contamination to the legislated numerical standards and criteria. Option 2 is to conduct a Risk Assessment and then to "manage" the excess risk. The gentleman presenting the webinar was very clear that Option 2 was more "cost effective". Cost effective in plain English means cheaper. He also advised that there were some liabilities with Option 2 namely ongoing monitoring and maintenance of any engineered methods used to "manage" the risk. Also he had the good graces to advise that past stigmas around owning contaminated sites have dissipated dramatically.

The webinar also referenced the Risk Paradigm. This is three intertwined circles representing Contaminants in one circle, Receptors in another and Exposure Pathway in the third. Where these three circles all overlap is supposed to be the amount or extent of Risk. In fact this Paradigm makes it very clear to me that polluters (and sometimes their regulators) have golden opportunities to fudge the entire process. They can artificially reduce the number and extent of contaminants by arbitrary screening methods. They can increase the Method Detection Limits (MDL) higher than the provincial/federal criteria and standards in order to miss huge numbers of toxic chemical exceedances. They can use unsatisfactory sampling methods such as shovels versus core samplers which miss much of the fines during creek bed sampling. The fines are where the hydrophobic compounds such as DDT, Dioxins, PCBs etc. are normally found. As far as Receptors go it is child's play to ignore higher up the food chain receptors of highly contaminated fish and benthic organisms. By simply not testing tissues of higher predators there will be no scientific evidence of further bio-accumulation of toxins from the creek. Similarly Exposure Pathways can also be fudged mercilessly. All three of these circles need to be investigated and researched by independent and unbiased parties. Simply allowing the polluter to hire his longtime, highly paid consultants with a huge conflict of interest is ridiculous.

It boils down to trust and confidence. If one has had thirty years of being ignored, lied to and deceived both in person and in report after report produced by parties working on behalf of the polluter then you will receive absolute crap. That is the reality and exactly what has happened in Elmira, Ontario. It continues in the supporting documents being produced for this Risk Assessment and will continue in the Risk Assessment itself. I believe that it is possible for an unbiased but knowledgeable party without self-interest involved to produce a relatively good Risk Assessment. Those are not the circumstances regarding the Uniroyal/Lanxess Site Specific Risk Assessment.

Further details on other matters from last evening's TAG meeting will be presented here tomorrow.

Thursday, January 23, 2020


Last Friday I had mentioned my recollection of Jason Rice's (MECP) response sent to TAG about my October 30 e-mail and its' overview of the SSRA (site specific risk assessment) process. I stated last Friday that my recollection was that Mr. Rice had not really addressed my e-mail very directly. In fact I have just reread Mr. Rice's comments. In fact he addressed a grand total of one paragraph out of eleven in my e-mail to the TAG Chair plus members. That one paragraph was the second paragraph in which I advised that Dr. Henry Regier had seriously examined and researched SSRA's back "around 2004" and found them wanting. Mr. Rice then suggested that somewhere in that time area that the MOE had changed their process around SSRAs. He suggested that formerly SSRAs were based on MOE 1996 "Guidelines..." and that as of October 2004 they based their SSRAs on "Brownfields regulation (O.Reg. 153/04).

Jeez are you kidding me? Mr. Rice ignores the specific and substantive multiple paragraphs harshly criticizing Lanxess, GHD and the MOE/MECP for their studies and testing of the Canagagigue Creek sediments, soils and floodplain soils and he comments solely on the basis of Dr. Henry Regier's conclusion that SSRA's are being used in Elmira, Ontario by polluters and their regulator for "greenwashing" purposes. I also included a link to my book (Chapter 7) that contains Dr. Regier's complete report on the matter.

The "cleanup" of the Elmira Aquifers and the Canagagigue Creek are and always have been a sham. The process is all about minimizing the extent of the contamination as well as minimizing Uniroyal/Lanxess's costs to clean it up properly. That is and always has been the priority of the guilty parties including the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. They have been and continue to be securely in bed with Uniroyal and their corporate successors.

Mr. Rice's comments are simply yet another diversion. He refuses to address the serious criticisms in my October 30/19 e-mail and seems to be suggesting that ah gee we the MOE/MECP fixed our internal processes and hence Dr. Regier's comments and conclusions are invalid. Horse manure! A long captured, corrupt regulator can change their internal processes inside out, year in and year out, but without a substantive housecleaning from the top down nothing will change. Decades ago (early 1990s) some sort of formal investigation of the MOE was suggested and reported on in the media after multiple instances of deceit, lying, tip offs and more were unearthed regarding Varnicolor Chemical as well as suspicious events around Uniroyal Chemical. It never got off the ground but should have. Clearly pro business, pro corporate attitudes at the expense of the environment at the very top of our provincial government protected the guilty parties.

Wednesday, January 22, 2020


Newspaper Article Titled "No cleanup target defined for Chemtura". This headline was in the Elmira Independent on Thursday, December 5, 2013. Yes that was over six years ago and we were back at TAG this past fall still asking this question. What are the parameters, the criteria for achieving cleanup in the Elmira Aquifers? The last CPAC (then Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) publicly asked this question of Chemtura and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE now MECP). To date neither have answered the question.

CPAC asked many such difficult questions of Chemtura and the MOE. We citizen volunteers were rewarded for our diligence and commitment by the new, incoming council of October 2014 as they manufactured a CPAC crisis, backstabbed and lied to assist Chemtura and the MOE obtain a new, more amenable and less knowledgeable citizens committee. Councillor Patrick Merlihan was the only councillor who publicly expressed reservations about the whole plan and in fact referred to the proposed new RAC and TAG public consultation aspect as "cringeworthy".

Some CPAC members in late 2013, Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach, Graham Chevreau, Ron Campbell as well as myself from the SWAT (Soil. Water, Air & Technical) sub-committee all expressed concern that the cleanup standards and expectations were so wishy-washy. Which aquifers, which groundwater monitors, current or future criteria ...what exactly would define whether or not the cleanup was completed and acceptable? To this date we still don't know although there are rumblings that a new Control Order (i.e. Environmental Compliance Agreement?) from the MOE/MECP may be in the works. Whether it will address this issue or simply redefine the 2028 cleanup deadline so as to legitimize the Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess failures remains to be seen.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020


There is an old saying to the effect that a person would rather be convicted of bank robbery than charged with child molesting. Well it turns out that the Guelph police appear to have screwed up really badly. Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following story titled "Guelph police issue apology over wrongful arrest". In this particular case Guelph police apparently issued a media release identifying a 32 year old Guelph man as having been charged for possession of child pornography as well as for voyeurism. There were two problems with this media release however. Firstly the Guelph man was never charged after being arrested and secondly he was not in possession of child pornography nor was he engaged in voyeurism. The Guelph police to their credit have since publicly confirmed that and apologized for the damage and embarrassment that they caused. A family lawyer has also advised that the police have paid an undisclosed sum of money to settle the dispute. There were also allegations of police using excessive force and causing bruising and bleeding to the Guelph man.

Here's the problem for me. The police initial statement of defense against the family's lawsuit claimed officers were acting in the course of their duties as police officers and even more alarming the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU) cleared the Guelph officers of any wrongdoing in the course of their arrest.

Sorry but it appears to me as if the SIU's credibility has taken another hit here. You really can't have it both ways. Is arresting the wrong person and causing bruising and bleeding "...acting in the course of their duties as police officers.". I sincerely hope not.

Monday, January 20, 2020


It is scheduled for January 29, 2020 in Lions Hall (beside the Elmira arena) at 7:30 pm. There are a number of major issues that the public will ignore at their personal peril if they do not attend and at least listen and learn. Ideally if they have some concerns or comments they should approach the microphone and present them. This of course assumes that it will be a real public meeting and not one of the hokey, dog and pony shows whereby the proponents, their consultants and then the MOE preach to the converted while ignoring the rest of the audience. I will say this: during the period of a few years where I attended the Woolwich Bio-En citizens committee meetings I found the company and their spokespersons/management/ownership to be quite approachable. I sincerely hope that thisd is the plan for the 29th.

Issues include the expansion of the site to include a waste transfer station. Details please! Volumes, types of waste, method of storage etc. Then there is the increase in the type of waste to be made available for the digestor and production of methane. Again details please! What kinds of waste? From where etc.? The whole idea of generating electricity from organic waste is to produce more energy with fewer environmental negatives. Trucking organic waste hundreds of miles by truck may well negate the advantages of the entire idea of renewable energy. Yes there is lots of organic waste out there but if it's going to be used for generating electricity it should be done so close to the source of the wastes. Of course an increase in truck traffic through and near the downtown is a very bad idea. Diesel fumes are toxic and have already taken local citizens lives. We do not need more concentrated in a small, already busy area.

Please attend on the 29th and decide if this project, on the balance of its merits and drawbacks should go ahead.

Saturday, January 18, 2020


These Minutes essentially echo the posting I did here in the Advocate last November 29/19 albeit with some more detail. For example on page 3 of the Minutes, in regards to either source removal or alternative remediation methods, it states "Other options such as in-situ treatment options have not been given a reasonable amount of attention and time to be explored and considered. The default has always been pump and treat. TAG feels that to date LANXESS has not systematically evaluated and tested all the options available."

These comments are both honest and accurate. They have been said consistently by Elmira and area citizens literally for decades. And those citizens and ideas have been given lip service attention only by Conestoga Rovers, Uniroyal Chemical, Crompton, Chemtura, Lanxess, GHD and the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Essentially those guilty parties view public consultation as merely an objectionable necessity to be tolerated albeit certainly not to be seriously considered if the ideas cost a nickel more (or a million more) then the cheapest, longest spread out time frame that will keep the company management out of jail and their company name completely out of the mud.

The rest of the Minutes include other criticisms of the company and their consultants recent work such as the 2018 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). The MOE/MECP hydrogeologist Cynthia Doughty, to her credit pulls no punches in her litany of complaints regarding this GHD report done on behalf of Lanxess. Similarly TAG members such as Dustin Martin (new) and David Hofbauer agree with Ms. Doughty as well as add points of their own. Unfortunately all is for naught as the process gives 100% control and authority to the polluter and friends. Dr. Richard Jackson was correct in his assessment that it is not technical problems stalling/delaying and denying proper cleanup it is public policy problems. i.e. government legislation and will

Friday, January 17, 2020


Initially there will be a half hour presentation in regards to SSRA's i.e. site specific risk assessments. I expect that it will be mostly heavy duty bull wrapped in warm, comfy blankets and delivered by bought and paid for technical "experts" and self appointed professionals.

At the 6:30 pm TAG meeting there will be detailed discussion about the re-evaluation of Canagagigue Creek contaminants of potential concern including a MOE/MECP response to my October 30/19 e-mail sent to TAG on the subject. My recollection of the MOE/MECP response was that it really didn't say much at all about my October 30 e-mail.

There will also be a discussion around the revised conceptual site model (CSM) for the Canagagigue Creek.

Based upon past TAG comments and concerns I am hoping that they will seriously push back on Lanxess and the MECP's plans. My October 30/19 e-mail really laid out the basic nonsense, failures and shabby science behind the guilty parties plans for the Creek. It's all about minimizing, scoping and pretending that less cleanup and cost will be adequate for the creek. It will not.

Of course the entire exercise continues to isolate and muzzle the public, myself, and other CPAC members from either asking questions, making comments or seriously participating in the process. It has been an intentional process of discrimination and elimination of informed, sincere, and dedicated citizens from the so called public consultation process. Perhaps muzzles will need to be worn at future meetings to press that point home.

Thursday, January 16, 2020


Well first off you have to understand that the Ontario Ministry of Environment do not tolerate failure. Therefore in consultation with the polluter they will lower the criteria required for "cleanup" if the polluter is unable to achieve the standards/criteria they have previously agreed to in a MOE/MECP Control Order or Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). The current example is in regards to the off-site (i.e. off the Uniroyal/Lanxess property) pumping rates. Hence as Lanxess have been having fits in operating their pump and treat system at the pumping rates required they have lowered their Target pumping rates. Well W6A has been reduced from a pathetic .57 litres per second to a more pathetic .20 l/s. Well W6B has had its Target rate reduced from .69 l/s to .3 l/s. Hmm I wonder if I can advise the Waterloo Regional Police the next time I am stopped for driving at 105 km/hr on the Expressway that I would appreciate them increasing their speed limit to 105 km/hr in order to accomodate my failure to comply.

Further pumping failures include pumping well W9. It has been a disaster from the get go a few years back. Instead of using their already proven treatment technology and treatment trains they decided to go with a brand new system referred to as the Trojan system. Talk about a failure! W9 is located on the west side of Union St. just behind the former Elmira Shirt Factory (Park St.) and other names. It is remarkably close to former municipal landfill M-1 which may or may not contain wastes from earlier days textile industries and more in Elmira. That landfill does predate Uniroyal Chemical's dumping (legal?) in all the rest of our local landfills including Bolender Park Landfill, First St. Landfill, Woolwich Landfill (just north of town) etc..

The good news this month is that on-site pumping wells PW4 & PW5 have been restored and are achieving their mandated total of 4.7 litres per second. Of course lest we forget we (CPAC & public) were advised publicly by Jeff Merriman of Chemtura that those on-site wells would be pumping 6.0 litres per second. So much for promises even public ones. You can understand why I don't believe in private meetings with non-credible polluters because if they are willing to break public promises then exactly what use are private promises?

Wednesday, January 15, 2020


This one is not in Woolwich Township but in Wilmot west of Kitchener near Shingletown. The usual suspects are involved with Esbaugh Trucking and David Sisco of the IBI Group. Mr. Sisco has represented clients at hearings in Woolwich and likely throughout Waterloo Region and area. There is such a similarity between all these applications for new pits without any evidence apparently being required for any need much less urgent need for gravel extraction from the proposed new pit. Nor is there any market study showing that the gravel could economically be extracted from existing pits to supply current market needs and demands. I've long felt that it's simply about tying up future potentially needed gravel pits decades down the road. This is to prevent competitors from having shorter haul routes to some future imagined gravel demand nearby. That would therefore allow you to bid higher for a gravel contract knowing that your competitors couldn't undercut your prices based upon being closer to the potential new project.

Issues include noise, truck traffic, and groundwater contamination. Of course the proponents have bought and paid for studies which minimize all such possibilities. It's nothing more than a dance to benefit the privileged few at the expense of the many. Such is the result of decades of lobbying and allowing money to buy politicians and laws.

Today's Waterloo Region Record article is titled "Emotions run high as Hallman gravel pit comes to Wilmot council".

Tuesday, January 14, 2020


Clean Water Works (CWW) (1-866-6950155) out of Ottawa are working on Queen St. for the last week. They have been contracted by Woolwich Township allegedly to line aging sewer pipes thus reducing leaks. Indeed there was a Staff report to Council back on November 12, 2019 allegedly describing the planned work for Queen St. and many other older streets in Elmira.

CWW also do other underground services such as clearing blocked underground pipes. The problem with phoning or e-mailing Woolwich asking for details is that they tend to be highly defensive regarding existing lead and asbestos pipe still in service. Therefore sewer pipe work will more readily be confirmed than waterline pipe. The pipe lining process is known as CIPP or Cured In Place Piping.

At the same time I was advised a couple of months back about ongoing plans here in Elmira include some removal (lining?) of both lead and asbestos pipe slowly over the next several years. Again always putting face saving ahead of truthfulness, I'm doubtful that Woolwich would admit to actually doing the right thing so quickly especially as it was recommended by one of their critics. Who knows however. Perhaps there is a blockage. Perhaps they are lining sewer pipe and perhaps they are lining water pipe. It's likely good news regardless although fudging on keeping the public informed is a bad habit that they have acquired over the decades. The 1989 Elmira Water Crisis was a prime example.

Monday, January 13, 2020


Under "other incidents" I would include the unexplained, clearly to the public, as to what caused the at work death of a long time employee a few years ago. I sincerely hope that the spouse and family of the deceased have been given the truth on the matter. It was an awful situation whereby the employee working the night shift on his own did not return home on I believe the Saturday morning. His wife drove over to the plant and found her husband dead in the middle of the floor. At one point we the public were given the possible explanation of a lightening strike but frankly that sounds to me like an excuse on the initial level of Iran suggesting that a fire broke out on the Ukrainian jet causing it to crash.

In the above title I use the word "seriously". That is because our authorities are experts at pretend "investigations". Nothing about the negligence and incompetence exhibited by staff, councillors, and consultants involved with the Bolender Park Landfill "investigations" has ever made much sense. Very little about the recent (last three years) behaviour by those parties has given much credibility to the methane gas situation and the so called responsible parties.

Approximately thirty-five years ago explosive methane levels were found on the Martin Pet Foods (now Elmira Pet Products) property in probes installed by the consultants to the Township. Those probes allegedly are long gone today. Whether "lost", damaged, vandalized, stolen I do not know but they have not been tested/monitored since. Nor have they been replaced which is just ridiculous. Is this a case of plausible deniability? Is this a case of we are making money from this factory and gosh darn it you are not going to shut us down just because of a little bit of explosive methane gas?

Keep clearly in mind that Woolwich Township staff and consultants have claimed that the methane gas collection system installed on the former Paleshi Motors property in 1984 was successfully pumping methane gas out of the ground until about 2015 before it was removed. That is an absolute croc of crap and the series of reports from Conestoga Rovers make that very clear. So are we to hope that all that garbage generated methane gas has dissipated into the atmosphere all on its own without incident? Clearly the Township know better as they are trying to rebuild a new methane collection system on the now 86 Auto Recycling property. They have been unsuccessful due to their taxpayer funded hard nosed behaviour towards the owners. Woolwich Township have been playing with the lives and health of local residents and park users in and around the former landfill for far too long. Has leaking methane been the cause of any of the fires or other incidents at Elmira Pet Foods over the decades? If not then more than the Township's tarnished word or any of their bought and paid for friends is required.

Saturday, January 11, 2020


In fact GHD, consultants to both Lanxess Canada and Woolwich Township, reviewed my August 22, 2017 Delegation to Woolwich Council. Their review was in my opinion rather mealy mouthed. By that what I am saying is that they tried to show disagreement with my Delegation when very little to none actually existed. My Delegation was very factual and focused on technical reports produced for the Township by CRA (Conestoga Rovers) who also were consultants for both Uniroyal Chemical and Woolwich Township. That was/is a gross conflict of interest however Woolwich Township have long had great self-serving abilities to misunderstand what a conflict of interest really is.

Following is the verbatim text of my response to GHD and Woolwich Council:


GHD have written a report on behalf of their client, Woolwich Township, responding to my August 22, 2017 Delegation to this Council .

GHD claim that they had a methane gas collection system operating from 1983 until 2015 on pages 2 and 10 of their Review. 1983 is likely a typo and 2015 is inaccurate. The Collection System was built in 1984. It may very well have been plugged in to its’ power source throughout and the blower may have been working but it wasn’t blowing either soil gas or landfill gas (methane) the whole time. This can be readily ascertained by the gas probe readings along the length of the collection system between 1998 and 2015. It’s not that the methane readings were zero it’s that the readings simply don’t exist. The reasons vary from the probes being flooded, not found (ie. buried), blocked with debris, caps missing allowing air intrusion, to simply not being measured. Totally unsuccessful attempts at readings were made in 2007 and since then no further attempts have been made. Even at the blower pump in the early and mid 1990s there have been readings of zero. As per page 3 of the March 1998 CRA Report “…combustible gas was not detected at the blower, indicating that combustible gas is not being collected by the system at a measureable concentration.” This page is being included in my handout to Council. The other problem GHD have with their claim of ongoing operation is more of their own words back in 1998. I have included in my handout to Council, page 5 of CRA’s March 3, 1998 Report. It states “Due to the high water table at the site, the existing Gas Control System is of limited use. In addition the Gas Control System does not appear to be functioning. It is, therefore, recommended that the existing Gas Control System be abandoned.”. Further to GHD ‘s claims of ongoing operation of the gas collection system is their own next report, nine years later. That would be in 2007. On page 5 they stated “ The Landfill Gas Collection System does not appear to be operating effectively due, primarily to the high water table at the time of monitoring. It is still recommended that the current Landfill Gas Collection System be abandoned.”. While all of these reports and hence quotes are in Woolwich Township hands I am nevertheless including copies of the pages as I seriously doubt Council have read any of them nor will look them up to confirm the quotes. It is my opinion that GHD’s claims today that the system was operating from 1983 until 2015 are wishful thinking. It could also be a loyal attempt to support both their client and their own CRA colleagues, by advising that this inadequate gas collection system worked successfully for thirty-two years. It did not as per both their own text and data.

On page 2 of GHD’s September 14, 2017 Review of my Delegation they state that there have been 28 gas probes installed around the site since 1983. That is correct. Their distribution has been zero on the south side of the landfill, six on the east side, eleven on the north side and eleven on the west side. Over the last twenty-one years, exactly 8 gas probes of the 28 have been successfully monitored. Over the entire 34 years there has been of course zero monitoring attempts to the south (o probes), seventeen successful monitoring attempts to the east (6 probes), fourty-seven successful monitoring attempts to the north (11 probes), and sixty-nine successful monitoring attempts to the west (11 probes). That is an obvious locational bias in both probes installed and in probes successfully monitored. The point I’m making is that regular and ongoing gas probe monitoring for methane gas around the perimeter of the site has not occurred . The bulk of the monitoring has been at the auto recycling yard for some peculiar reason, while diligently avoiding the south into the park and the east into the residential subdivision.

On page 8 of GHD’s Review of my Delegation they comment on very high methane gas readings found twice in 2008 and twice in 2010 at the gas probe a mere 26 metres (85 feet) from the nearest home on High St.. They state that this distance “provides a buffer against landfill gas migrating to the residence.” . That is a shocking claim and I doubt that any other landfill gas expert would ever make such a statement . In fact CRA/GHD in their February 2009 Report in their Conclusions and Recommendations suggested that “…the Township may wish to initiate an indoor air monitoring program with contingencies for basement spaces and other enclosed environments in the closest residence on High St….”. This is the exact same residence but is only referring to the 2008 monitoring results. 2010’s were both higher. Speaking of those results GHD stated that the concentrations were “above the 20% LEL trigger.”. That is correct. They were 80% LEL, 350%, 390% and finally 420% LEL .

Lastly we will mention GHD’s claim that there are no “receptors” south of the currently claimed location of the Bolender Landfill. I did advise Council verbally last Tuesday that the 2016 Geotechnical Investigation for the new Splash Pad had a little surprise in it. While the consultants were discreet in regards to their findings, they were honest about them. “Organics” and “ organic materials” were found and mentioned on page 3 as well as in all six boreholes they drilled. The term is also used in GHD’s September 14 Review we are discussing. It is at the bottom of page 1, in the footnote. Organic materials folks are what you put in your compost. They are foodstuffs and yes eventually they turn into soil but in the anaerobic, bacterial process they release methane gas. Therefore I have provided a map to Council which shows the location of the splashpad relative to George St.. As municipal garbage apparently is present underneath the park then it’s likely right beside the backyards of the George St. residents. There are your receptors GHD and you and CRA have never tested for methane gas in the park area, much less further north at the alleged southern boundary of the Bolender Park Landfill.

There are many other problems with GHD’s Review of my August 22/17 Delegation. These include their nitpicking about industrial wastes not being municipal wastes not being chemical wastes etc.. There are other sources than the two GHD mention (Jackman/MOE & Environmental Audit) that indicate there are chemical wastes from Uniroyal in the Bolender Landfill including NDMA, resins and leftover 2,4-D wastes in filter cloths. The good news is that the Bolender Landfill was rejected as a significant source of NDMA to the Elmira Aquifers although this upgradient from Uniroyal groundwater , in 1991, was above the Ontario Drinking Water Standards for NDMA .

My deepest thanks to GHD for their Review as it has further clarified the gaps in CRA’s reports and they have shown that a proper methane evaluation still needs to be done at the Bolender Park Landfill. Also my thanks to Woolwich Council for authorizing this further expenditure on consultants, all towards the goal of protecting property and lives around this landfill.

Alan Marshall proud CPAC & EH-Team member"

Since that date Woolwich Township have installed another methane gas monitoring probe to the north of the landfill (near Elmira Pet Foods) and finally after 36 years one monitoring probe to the south at the edge of the park itself. I take that as both an admission that my advice was accurate/correct and as a compliment. Nothing of course will "fix" the failures of the last 36 years however if they put in more probes both east and south and monitor ALL of them (N, S, E & W) regularly say monthly then in a couple of years I would feel much more confident that they at least understood the situation. It still likely requires the construction of a new methane collection system for which they should be discussing/negotiating directly with the owner of 86 Auto Recycling, namely Mr. Frank Rattasid. Of course their behaviour and attitude towards Mr. Rattasid and his business need to be radically improved for that to happen. Refusing to negotiate in good faith and forcing local businesses to go to court over black and white issues such as an illegal municipal waterline on their private property and then the Township hiding behind taxpayers money is contemptible and does not serve the public interest.

Friday, January 10, 2020


The title above is the same title in yesterday's Waterloo Region Record. This unfortunately is not remotely a good news story. This contaminated site should have been cleaned up decades ago rather than hiding behind weak environmental laws allowing contaminated sites to just sit while the owners refuse to do regular groundwater, soil and air monitoring. The chemical involved included trichloroethylene (TCE) which has a very long history of human health injury and death.

For the neighbours I sincerely hope that their discomfort has been solely one of aesthetics from a lack of grass cutting and snow blowing to simply the sight of the deteriorating building. I am not confident of that however due to the nature of TCE being what is known as a DNAPL chemical. This stands for Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid. Chemicals of this type can literally stay in the subsurface and slowly dissolve into the groundwater at well above health standards. The TCE dissolved in the groundwater moves over time and can also volatilize into a gas which via a process known as vapour intrusion can enter basements and cause major health problems. This is what happened in Cambridge, Ontario as well as many other locations in Canada and the U.S.

I do not for one second believe that the Ontario MOE/MECP took any serious steps to protect local Kitchener residents of Shanley St. from this potentially lethal situation.

Thursday, January 9, 2020


Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following story titled "Righting wrongful convictions". This is not just about the disgrace of injustice to our south (i.e. the U.S.), it is about Canada too. The article gives the background to a recent movie release titled "Just Mercy". This background includes consultation with Bryan Stevenson, the death row lawyer who inspired this Hollywood movie.

Mr. Stevenson has spent his life freeing wrongfully convicted people from American jails. He makes it very clear that the poor and disenfranchised are merely grist for the judicial mills that exist at least partially for their own benefit. Innocence Canada was formerly known as "The Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted". A recent case involved Halifax's Glen Assoun who spent seventeen years in jail for a murder he did not commit.

Many U.S. cases are even more blatant and disgusting including trials where juries ignored testimony from multiple black witnesses that the accused (also black) had been attending a fish fry when the murder occurred.

This is not an easy article to read but needs to be done for citizens to fully understand how nightmarish and bizarre both our judicial system and our southern neighbours has become. There is no excuse for this descent of our well financed system into chaos and injustice.

Wednesday, January 8, 2020


Well I just went for an unsuccessful look on the Environmental Registry. Lots of stuff there but I couldn't find anything dealing with Elmira Pump, 84 Howard Avenue, Elmira, Ontario. This doesn't mean that the information isn't there, it just means that I couldn't find it if it is. A few minutes later and I've had a chat with a lady over in Guelph who deals with Records of Site Condition. She states that it is entirely a proponent driven process and that the ball is still in Elmira Pump's Court. In other words she claims that the holdup is at their end. Quite frankly I don't know wehat to think. This does not jive with what I've been told on occasion over nearly the last four years. Elmira Pump certainly at the public meeting in Woolwich Council Chambers in May 2016 were all keen on getting the process going and getting their completed Record of Site Condition because they were hoping to develop part of the property with above ground commercial storage areas.

Tuesday, January 7, 2020


At least not one with any political/governmental association. MOE/MECP ...please that's not even funny. ERT or Environmental Review Tribunal. Nope. They turned down APT Environment's appeal against Crompton/MOE decades ago and as well mine back in 2008 against Chemtura/MOE. The Environmental Commissioner has done good work in the past thus the position no longer exists. Even the Ombudsman under Andre Marin had a good reputation hence he was let go in favour of someone a little more to the government of the days liking.

If there was an honest governmental broker they would be swamped with requests and appeals from citizens across Ontario. Cambridge and the Bishop St. community's environmental crisis was mishandled and grossly understated by the Region of Waterloo, Public Health, MOE, City of Cambridge etc. Grassy Narrows and the poisoning of the English-Wabigoon river system has been a public embarrassment for many decades and is still unresolved. Don't even get me started on Elmira. Even with the last couple of years admissions that contrary to the MOE June 2000 MOE Control Order the cleanup of the Elmira Aquifers will not be completed by 2028, there has been no outcry from our authorities or governments. In fact the Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP) are on the verge of introducing a new amended Control Order to legitimize the failure of Uniroyal/Chemtura/Lanxess to comply with the old Control Order. That is how governments deal with environmental failures. They legitimize them.

Then there is the black and white topographical contour lines on the east side of the still grossly contaminated Uniroyal/Lanxess site in Elmira. These topographical contour lines are uncontested. Different sources including the GRCA and the province of Ontario have consistent contour lines showing the flowpath of overflowing liquids from the east side toxic waste pits southwards and eastwards off the Uniroyal/Lanxess property and onto the Martin and Stroh farms. Those two farms in the past and currently during heavy rain and flood events the Canagagigue Creek is the recipient of mobilized hydrophobic compounds (DDT , dioxins & more). Currently these compounds are likely still bonded with soil particles on the two farms but especially in the low lying areas to the immediate east of the north end of the Stroh Drain, Ditch and Berm (SDDB).

Monday, January 6, 2020


October 31, 2013 : The title of the article in the Elmira Independent is "Chemtura runs into snags with in-situ treatment plan". This treatment plan was part of Chemtura's major announcement nearly a year earlier (Nov. 2012) when they were reacting to pressure from CPAC and also to Woolwich Council's support of CPAC's position regarding the failure of Uniroyal/Chemtura's Pump & Treat System to fully remediate the Elmira aquifers.

Chemtura announced that they would TRIPLE the off-site pumping (i.e. in the Elmira Aquifers) AND they would use some source removal off-site in various hot spots. The source removal was to be a process known as ISCO or In-Situ Chemical Oxidation. This is the same process that was used in Cambridge's Bishop St. community due to the Northstar and Rozell TCE and TCA contamination.

As an aside I had made a presentation to CPAC probably around 2009 about using ISCO in Elmira and I was totally shut down at that time by the MOE, CRA, Chemtura and the old Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC). Incompetent, arrogant, or simply corrupt they sure weren't ever going to take advice from the public or local, honest citizens.

Well Chemtura tried three different locations and settled by pumping well W3 on Industrial Dr. between Sanyo Canada to the north and the former McKee Harvestor to the south. As described by Dr. Richard Jackson a few years later, Conestoga Rovers botched the testing of ISCO in this area. Dr. Jackson expressed amazement that they hadn't obtained expert advice from companies who used this process regularly.

All in all it was just one more public relations exercise to give the impression that the company and their consultants were exploring all options to get the cleanup on track. Of course the Ontario Ministry of Environment held Chemtura's hands throughout this scam and made no serious criticisms of the whole process. This is but one reason why Dr. Jackson included the Ontario MOE in his overall criticism of the handling/mishandling of the Elmira and Creek cleanup.

Saturday, January 4, 2020


Really it's been close to seven years since Chemtura announced that they were narrowing down the cause of spikes in Canagagigue Creek soils and sediments. Allegedly they were likely from on-site sources along the creek as it passes through the Uniroyal/Chemtura/Lanxess property in Elmira. Whether in the north from piles of soil stored on the west side of the creek or south of the dam by former waste areas P1 and P2 or even possibly from GP1 & 2 which were partially excavated and capped in 2013.

Meanwhile the SSRA train is rolling inexorably along as Lanxess proceed with their second major risk assessment whose real purpose is simply to scope down their cleanup responsibilities and costs in and around the downstream Canagagigue Creek which they have poisoned. SSRA of course refers to site specific risk assessment and is a mathematical and procedural ploy which allows the Ontario Ministry of Environment in conjunction with the polluter to reduce legislated cleanup criteria in soils, sediments and waters in order to save both money and face. The company saves the money and the MOE/MECP saves face. The MOE get to pretend that the cleanup is satisfactory and meets its standards by redefining those standards based upon site conditions. In the hands of unscrupulous polluters it's a get out of jail free card and with much lesser fines as well.

Meanwhile despite the best junk science efforts from GHD the readings of DDT and dioxins continue to be way too high in the creek soils, sediments, floodplain soils, and lifeforms in the creek such as fish, benthic communities etc. The elephant in the room continues to be the Stroh AND Martin properties on the east side of Uniroyal/Chemtura/Lanxess. Yes I would not be remotely surprised if some of the DDT and dioxins are coming via still contaminated and uncontained groundwater on the Lanxess site as well as erosion but the east side waste pits and both surface and groundwater flow on the east are also contributing. Lanxess, GHD, MOE/MECP have all made it clear that despite superficial examination of the east side that they do not want to open that expensive and time consuming can of worms.

For me it is obvious that there most likely is a "sink" of hydrophobic compounds located in the lowest lying soils to the immediate east of the Stroh Drain, Ditch and Berm (SDDB). There may also be the same somewhere on the Martin property. Finally the entire length of the Stroh Drain (SDDB) from the soils around the Drain and the sediments in it all need to be tested. There are areas of the Stroh Drain that have branches and blockages that slow it down and allow sediments to fall to the bottom. Of course in high rainfall or creek flooding scenarios they are all mobilized again and move downstream.

Friday, January 3, 2020


Thursday January 23, 2020 at 6 pm. in Council Chambers is a TAG (Technical Advisory Committee) meeting.

Wednesday January 29/20 at 7:30 pm. is a public meeting about the proposed Woolwich Bio-En expansion to be held in Lions Hall (beside the arena)in Elmira.

Thursday February 6, 2020 at 3 pm. is TAG again, maybe. I actually have a question mark behind this marked on my calendar.

Thursday February 27 at 6:30 pm. I also have marked as a TAG meeting but with a question mark. Clearly this is not the norm as it is unlikely that we will have a regular TAG meeting in late January, Early February and then again in late February. My memory is telling me something about a possible public meeting in February perhaps to explain Risk Assessment processes etc. to both TAG members and the interested general public. As we get closer to these dates I will post here in the Elmira Advocate clarifications as to when and what the meetings are about. In the alternative anyone attending the Thursday January 23/20 meeting can either ask Lisa Schaefer who will be in attendance, for clarification. Otherwise they could also e-mail her at for earlier clarification.

Thursday, January 2, 2020


That's right today is my 3,202 post on my Elmira Advocate blog ( The ten year anniversary is coming up in early May of this new year (2020). The vast majority of my posts I am very proud of as they've been written from the perspective of thirty plus years experience in the environmental trenches and even more (40-50 years) in the labour, political trenches. By the labour, political trenches I mean from the outside looking in. In other words on the receiving end of what passes for legislation in the public interest and what passes for decency, fairness and honesty in the non-union labour field which is of course the majority of labour in this country. In hindsight I am also certain that there have been a few posts in which I let my passions and sense of outrage get the better of me. If I knew which ones and what dates I would revisit them to see if I could get the same message across while using more diplomatic language. Ahh perfection eludes us all.

I also have the Waterloo Region Advocate blog which historically has focused less on environmental matters and more on judicial, political and police matters. That changed somewhat with my posting of my book "Elmira Water Woes: The Triumph of Corruption, Deceit and Citizen Betrayal" in the Waterloo Region Advocate ( between September 15, 2019 and October 12. 2029. As an aside my book is also posted on the Cambridge Advocate website (

Therefore since mid October 2019 I have not been posting further on the Waterloo Region Advocate regarding labour, courts, police, political matters. Instead when such an item comes to my attention I post it here on the Elmira Advocate.

Again Happy New Year readers and citizens of Elmira/Woolwich.

Wednesday, January 1, 2020