TAG GETS IT BOTH RIGHT BIG TIME & WRONG (SOMEWHAT)

First of all Linda Dickson clarified that the October 4/21 article in the Record in which she advised of her confidence in the planning process (Woolwich) to protect citizens from Lanxess contamination was strictly about the Uniroyal/Lanxess property and did not include the neighbouring Stroh farm. Sorry but that still doesn't make anything better. It was the Woolwich planning process that decided to rezone the Stroh and Martin property to commercial/light industrial allowing future development on contaminated lands. ........................................................................................................................... The "somewhat wrong" matter as per the title above: TAG and TAG members will some day be asked to explain the disgusting policy of not allowing citizens to either ask questions or offer clarifying information at TAG public meetings. TAG will then jump on the fact that citizens are allowed to submit written "delegations" which go on the Agenda for discussion. Unfortunately not for discussion involving the authors of the written "delegation". And in fact not even for discussion by TAG members the majority of the time. I had submitted a "delegation", 2/3 of a page, to TAG dated September 24/21 describing the September 20/21 article in the K-W Record titled "Chemicals found in drain to Elmira's creek". I offerred insights and additional information regarding the Stroh Drain. Zero comments or questions from TAG. I also submitted to TAG as a courtesy my written October 7/21 "delegation" which I had read to the RAC committee that day. That "delegation" was longer (2 pages) and harder hitting as I described environmental and political corruption in Elmira, Ontario from the Ontario Ministry of Environment and from Woolwich Township. Zero comments or questions from TAG. Lastly surprisingly to me my October 8/21 response to Sandy Shantz's (pretend mayor) direct challenge that I provide written proof of local Elmira corruption was also included on last night's TAG Agenda. Zero comments or questions from TAG. ........................................................................................................................ I can't help but see a pattern here. The pattern is very clear that TAG on paper will accept written "delegations" but if they don't agree or approve of them then they will virtually ignore them. How stupid do you have to be not to even ask one clarifying question about a written report that is controversial? How cowardly do you have to be not to ask a single question about detailed, relevant Elmira history presented in the reports from before your time and involvement? How plainly biased does TAG want the public consultation process to be seen as? Most of the TAG members are five minute wonders or less and they won't (or can't?) ask a question of a local citizen involved in the issues since 1989 and earlier? ............................................................................................... Agenda Item 4.1 dealt with the Problem Formulation aspect of the Draft Risk Assessment. Wilson Lau is the TAG member with the most Risk Assessment experience. Well he may be a Risk Assessment expert but, par for the course, he didn't know that the Stroh Drain discharged downstream into what is known as Reach Three of the Canagagigue Creek. He stated that it discharged into Reach Four (further upstream) which includes the Lanxess site and would be included in Risk Assessment measures and mitigation efforts relevant to the site. Dear God! He was corrected by both Eric Hodgins of the Region of Waterloo and Susan Bryant of TAG. They indicated that the Stroh Drain ran through both the Stroh and Martin properties before discharging further downstream from Lanxess and Reach Four. Wilson appeared to be diminishing the significance of the 24.4 ppt TEQ (dioxin) found in the Stroh Drain recently while at the same time suggesting correctly that the sampling of the Stroh Drain to date has not been comprehensive. He repeatedly asked "Is there potential for higher concentrations?" My response is of course there is and more sampling will confirm that. Sebastian also added to the conversation by suggesting that we do not know if 24.4 parts per trillion (criteria is .85 ppt) is an outlier or are there much higher sediment concentrations in areas of the Stroh Drain. Linda Dickson also added her opinion that TAG does not know the maximum sediment concentrations in the Stroh Drain yet due to extremely limited sampling. Well done Susan, Sebastian, Linda and Eric H.. Not so good was Tiffany Svensson (TAG Chair) even mentioning that she does not want TAG to be a bottleneck in the entire process. Careful there Tiffany or your biases might show. .................................................................................................................... Dustin Martin of TAG as well as Wilson both appeared to be advising that there is a data gap related to sources and or to the Stroh Drain. Wilson suggested that it needs to be addressed sooner than later. He also repeated his earlier questions and comments namely: "Is the data set sufficient?" .............................................................................................................. I may post again tomorrow about last night's TAG meeting. Meanwhile while I applaud TAG's efforts to gently, politely and professionally push Lanxess in the right direction I must add that neither Lanxess nor the Min. of Environemnet (MOE/MECP) give a rat's butkus about polite, gentle pushing. Anything other than a between the eyes or much lower strike simply doesn't bother them in the least.