Friday, August 27, 2021

TAG : THE WHEAT IS BEING SEPARATED FROM THE CHAFF?

Sebastian was excellent at last evening's TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting. That said both the recently released (2 months ago) 2020 Canagagigue Creek Soil & Sediment Investigation as well as Sebastian's four page report to TAG spoke volumes. It is much easier to defend Lanxess/GHD ignoring proper testing and sampling than to ignore hard labratory evidence of dioxins/furans presence in the Stroh Drain. Three out of four samples exceeded by a large margin the criteria for dioxins/furans in sediments. The fourth was just below the criteria. Hence criticism in the past of Sebastian's position looking for soil testing in and around the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB) was very muted last night. Tiffany, TAG Chair, as well as Dustin Martin were very quiet and uncommitted. That was a change. Wilson Lau and Susan Bryant while outwardly supportive of Sebastian's efforts and analysis both commented and minimized the dioxin/furan reading of 24.4 parts per trillion (.85 ppt. is the criteria). Susan ingenuously stated that that result was much lower than other sediment readings. That was barely half true as yes four dioxin sediment readings on the Lanxess site well exceeded the Stroh Drain highest reading however literally every other sediment sample taken in this report (46 of them) had dioxin concentrations LOWER than 24.4 ppt. Similarly Wilson stated absolutely incorrectly that other readings in the 2020 report were "...orders of magnitude higher" than the Stroh Drain result. That is plain wrong as the highest dioxin sediment concentration was 425.6 ppt. on the Lanxess site which is ONE order of magnitude higher. "orders of magnitude" means either one hundred times higher or 1,000 times higher or 10,000 times higher. Simply not true. ......................................................................................................................... Sandy Shantz's input was embarassing. To her. She revealed both her comittment to the Woolwich Township decision to change the zoning from agricultural to light industrial/commercial on the east side of Lanxess (i.e. the Stroh and Martin farms and others) as well as to building the Elmira By-Pass on the east side of Elmira. She further revealed her woeful knowledge of the flow of toxic substances including DDT, NDMA, lindane, dioxins/furans, PAH etc. from the former Uniroyal Chemical site into the natural environment in Elmira including the Canagagigue Creek. Sebastian gently tried to clarify for her that her insistence that the creek was more important than the privately owned Stroh and Martin property and hence needed to be everyone's sole focus was not particularly insightful. Afterall cleaning the creek first while ignoring upstream sources of ongoing contamination to it was counterproductive. Sandy appeared to reluctantly agree. ............................................................................................................ Tiffany referenced some "Problem Formulation Document". That is the problem with having private meetings Tiffany. I've attended ALL the public TAG meetings whether in person or virtual since Covid-19 struck. I've never heard of any "Problem Formulation Document" nor as a member of the unwashed masses (the public) I could not ask for clarification as to what she was talking about. Tiffany suggested that TAG's concerns regarding the high dioxin concentration in the Stroh Drain sediments be summarized and given to Lanxess where somehow (magically?) they would be addressed in this "Problem Formulation Document" due for release on October 1, 2021. Wow does that sound like bullsh.. to me. A totally unsatisfactory response. .............................................................................................. Likely more from last night's TAG meeting will be posted tomorrow.

6 comments:

  1. Tiffany and Dustin being quiet last night is evidence of coverup on both their part. SHAMEFUL! Guilty as charged!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Show us the proof of a coverup.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good summary and some good points made by
    Sebastian but the path forward is still unclear whether Lanxess is obligated to do further sampling let alone cleanup. Time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Respectfully disagree with the last two comments. Proof of a coverup has been shown a thousand times over plus the honest and appropriate path forward is perfectly clear.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the proof of the coverup is ALL TALK and no action! except facilitating plans for what will actually be covered by new industrial buildings/properties and asphalt in the future They call this "development"

    ReplyDelete
  6. i call it a coverup!

    ReplyDelete