Unfortunately my prediction here in yesterday's post was accurate. My submissions were given token acknowledgement and nothing else at last night's TAG meeting. Frankly TAG that is unacceptable for a so called public consultation body. You received written and referenced materials from a local citizen with serious experience and knowledge regarding the years long and ongoing Canagagigue Creek Risk Assessment that contradict the Lanxess/GHD/MECP storyline and you wouldn't even present them for public discussion. The referenced materials included two letters from professional hydrogeologists (MOE & private), ERIS spills data and even a Lanxess report. That is shameful and does your credibility as purveyors of truth in the public interest no assistance. I am going to add a word to yesterday's post (3rd paragraph) right now as not discussing relevant submissions from local citizens is ongoing and outrageous censorship . ................................................................................. First of all until near the end of the meeting there were only four TAG members present. That is very unfortunate especially when more qualified and reliable citizens are available but that's all on Sandy Shantz and Woolwich Council. Linda Dickson raised an excellent point regarding land use change along the downstream Canagagigue Creek in future. Basically public trails and recreational uses in the floodplain are far more likely than residential development but will expose the public nevertheless to Uniroyal toxins if they are not removed. .............................................................................................. Sebastian made an excellent point that TAG should be more cautious regarding their knowledge of the downstream "hotspots". It is extremely likely that "locational sampling bias" has missed other highly contaminated areas and TAG agreed that all "hotspots" should be cleaned up not just the currently known couple of areas. As an aside Dustin Martin of TAG was welcomed back by Tiffany Svensson last evening. I do not know if Dustin had a similar conflict of interest issue as David Hofbauer or if his long absence was due to other factors. Dustin also spoke to the "reliability of the data set" for the Creek which I found interesting. He however did not elaborate on that. Wilson Lau followed with comments about the "spatial distribution" of the data. Dustin replied that he would like a second opinion from Stantec as to whether they are satisfied with that spatial distribution. I found this discussion unnecessarily obtuse and would have interrupted for clarification if that was possible. .............................................................................................. Sebastian raised concerns that the Study Area diagram was not clear as to whether all tributaries into the Canagagigue Creek were included or not. Discussion ensued which overall agreed that the Stroh Drain certainly was included, other creeks less obviously so. What I found unfortunate was that the few TAG members present appeared to have forgotten or missed the 2020 Canagagigue Creek Soil & Sediment Investigation that had some soil and sediment sample results from numerous creeks included. Once again Sebastian stood out as being the only TAG member interested in the Stroh Drain sediment results. I have found TAG's failure to discuss them as well as their missing soil results to be shocking. Interestingly to me it appeared as if Tiffany actually criticized Lanxess for their "very mediocre" efforts at remediation above and beyond pump & treat. She also stated that their "effort to date has been limited." I believe that references their grossly inadequate ISCO (In Situ Chemical Oxidation" attempts years ago. ..................................................................................................... Linda Dickson advised TAG that there had been yet another instance of loss of containment in the Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System (UACTS). This occurred after and during the March melt specifically March 18 & 19 . It was briefly restored and then lost containment for the rest of the month. After all these decades that is outrageous. The next TAG meeting is June 23, 2022 presumably at 6:30 pm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ignoring and muting you has been carefully scripted. I also wonder if they view TAG as an Advisory and not a Public Consultation Group? The name implies it though and you are the Public..
ReplyDeleteI would think that public consultation also includes giving advice, hence an advisory group. Regardless our authorities have sold TAG as a public consultation body.
ReplyDeleteYour first sentence would be somewhat helpful but I don't think he will be asked for advice. I also don't see many so called public participating on these virtual meetings which even leads o the question: how many of the public even care what happens?
Delete