BAIT & SWITCH: ONE MORE TOOL IN POLLUTERS' ARSENAL

Keep in mind these "tools" all are for one fundamental purpose and that is to psuedo scientifically bafflegab, confuse and intimidate citizens, Ministry of Environment and stakeholders. The intimidation is more regarding the MOE/MECP. If Lanxess/GHD simply publicly told the MOE/MECP to flock off then they might actually drag Lanxess/GHD into court and ask them to repeat that in front of the judge as their defense to legitimate cleanup requests/orders from the MOE/MECP. Instead by hiding behind bought and paid for "experts" as Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura and now Lanxess have done for decades; our favorite local polluter have incredibly upped the financial ante for the MOE to take them to court. Uniroyal and successors have made it abundantly clear that they will fight tooth and nail any and every attempt to order them to do so much as a nickel's worth more of remediation than they can even remotely claim as being unnecessary.

Bait and Switch is all about pretending to listen to stakeholders who have and are still involved trying to clean up the awful environmental damage still existing after thirty years of supposed cleanup and remediation. The basic strategy of the companies has been delay, delay and more delay. It's hoping that time will either break down some of the toxins or that it will allow natural processes to dilute and transport the toxins of their site. This is occurring. To give the impression that the companies are listening to stakeholders, they used to regularly attend all UPAC and CPAC public meetings. By the intervention of Sandy Shantz and Mark Bauman, allegedly on behalf of Woolwich Township, they have removed even that minor inconvenience to the polluter. From monthly public meetings they now attend three to four public RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) meetings per year and if they so feel like it they might attend a TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting once in a long while.

More specifically Bait & Switch involves allegedly embracing a good idea, say for sampling in a specific location, and then slightly modifying it just in case the good idea finds serious contamination requiring more cleanup expenditures. This was done for example along the Stroh/Lanxess property line. Sampling consisted of a limited suite of parameters combined with a width of only ten metres and most ridiculously a depth of fifteen centimetres (i.e. 5.9 inches). As usual this nonsense was not scientifically justified by independent consultants or experts.

The next attempt to carry out a Bait & Switch will be Lanxess's manipulations to avoid properly sampling the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm area on the Stroh (and Martin) property. Under very appropriate pressure from TAG they will likely nibble around the edges of where the soil (and more) samples should be taken. They will likely rely on co-opted individuals to make poor to mediocre suggestions which they will leap on. If TAG members make different sampling proposals they will pick and choose to their benefit. If TAG are unanimous then it may be the result of behind the scenes negotiating and compromising among the members. Polluters just love compromises as they save them millions of dollars which are transferred onto the back of the environment, wildlife and human receptors. It is obvious where sampling needs to take place but Lanxess/GHD as they have to date will resist. It is a damning indictment that it has taken six years and zero sampling has been done since October 2014 when CPAC and their consultant (MTE) exposed the off-site flow of contaminants onto the Stroh farm. By following via ground surface contours, the surface flow of liquid wastes from the east side pits (RPE 1-5) over to the lowest lying areas on the Stroh farm, one can determine where to sample. Lanxess and consultants continue to refuse.