Monday, October 31, 2022


 What is the evidence you ask? One component only is the litany of several hundreds or more written, allegedly technical reports by Conestoga Rovers and GHD in addition to other consulting companies and the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Some are informative, some are much less so, others are likely intentionally obtuse and others are simply self-serving trash.

I have spent the weekend reviewing again the September 1, 2022 MECP report from their Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch (EMRB) titled "Sediment and forage fish monitoring results from September 2020 in Canagagigue Creek". Some reports I have read bravely push ahead into unchartered territory making self-serving, unfounded claims. Others such as this one attempt to build upon either past  falsehoods or sketchy hypotheses that were seriously critiqued by citizens and then more seriously deflected and ignored in order to be used again down the road. 

So what is at stake? Eventually the environmental collapse of our planet if these perpetrators are not stopped and their behaviours reversed.  The simplest descriptions of their behaviours are the production and interpretation of junk and psuedo scientific reports. Yes they are written well enough and many are signed by credentialed "experts" such that either lazy or unintelligent readers can be fooled. This most definitely includes the majority of our local and provincial politicians. Keep in mind that some of these reports' hard data could actually have some scientific merit but when the alleged "experts" interpreting them are bought and paid for, "client driven" human beings relying on industry business to pay their mortgages and food on their tables, then the floor is tilted strongly towards those paying the bills i.e.  the polluters. In normal circles that would be called "conflicts of interest". Here in Elmira, Ontario that term is one of several that simply do not apply. Black is white and white is black and there has been zero willingness to honestly discuss pollution issues with citizens who are unbiased and unbeholden to Uniroyal/Lanxess/MECP influence and persuasion.

Is there one overarching conflict of interest that has subverted our Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP)? Maybe or maybe not. I will suggest one possible issue terrifying them but there are others. Fear of both public exposure and condemnation as well as of civil financial liability if they and Uniroyal/Lanxess are sued for permitting and allowing the diversion of Uniroyal Chemical contaminated liquid wastes into the Martin swimming pond. This pond was used by generations of Mennonite families including children. The diversion of both contaminated ground and surface water into the manmade Stroh Drain (SDDB) is an abomination. I am more confident that groundwater was diverted than surface water because the natural surface water flow does go onto the Stroh property although due to later landscaping it likely was reduced.   



Saturday, October 29, 2022


It turns out that the Ontario Ministry of Environment have yet again exceeded expectations with their latest piece of really trashy junk science. An unnamed university Biology prof has suggested that the September 1, 2022 report on sediment and fish monitoring in the Canagagigue Creek is at the level of a poor first year Biology undergrad. I have commented maybe a month ago on this report but the more I look at it the more it smells. Sort of like what you would expect environmental pigs to smell like if you will.  

The fact is that based on pure volume I would certainly credit CRA/GHD with the j/p science award otherwise known as the junk/psuedo science award. Over the decades I have seen good reports from the MOE/MECP regarding hydrogeology. This one stinks .  Interestingly to date no one individual or even group have signed their names to this stinker. Can't possibly imagine why not.   

Friday, October 28, 2022


 Among other things today I have been reading one new report (i.e. critique) as well as refreshing my memory regarding a MECP report based on sediment and fish tissue residue sampling in late 2020. The report was a piece of self-serving crap which I did comment on here a few weeks ago. Now another party has entered the fray and have done their own research and come to some interesting conclusions. One of the interesting aspects of this report is the failure of any single or group of Biologists putting their name on the report. OH my God but if you read the report carefully and conscientiously, that is no wonder. What professional Biologist would ever want to sign their name to this piece of trash? Apparently none working for the MOE/MECP. 

This report sure speaks volumes for the conspiracy between Uniroyal/Lanxess and the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MECP).

Thursday, October 27, 2022


 Well if nothing else, wise Canadians are seeing exactly what our governments, municipal, regional, provincial and national are made of. It isn't pretty. All are made up of human beings generally no smarter, no wiser, no more experienced in good governance than you or I. Unfortunately however many are experts at obfuscation, deception and manipulation. They are wise in the ways of non transparency and non accountability. Undermining rivals declared or otherwise is a post grad level of accomplishment for them. Making alliances of convenience is all in a days work. Oh yes and then there is piety. You think that you've seen and heard pious religious leaders? Most can not hold a candle to professional politicians.

Today's Waterloo Region Record takes a serious round out of our municipal, provincial and federal leaders as well as our so called professional police officers. Their Editorial states that the ongoing Public Inquiry in Ottawa has offered a look at "...clashing egos, duelling priorities and internecine rivalries. We have been privy to police infighting and dysfunction...". Furthermore there have been "...repeated tales of intelligence and communications failures..." as well as behaviour by our authorities described as "disingenuous", "wilfully misleading" and worse. Much of it, but not all, is aimed at Doug Ford, premier of Ontario. 

Makes you want to question newcomers trying to enter political life. Either they are hopelessly naive, rotten to the core or maybe, just maybe worldly beyond their years yet still hopeful for the human race.   

Wednesday, October 26, 2022


 Well the bad news is quite obvious. We're still stuck with a dishonest Mayor who appears to love school boards (Breslau), corporations (Chemtura & Lanxess) and who jumps when told to jump by the provincial government (Min. of Environment etc.). The "dishonest" is readily proven via a scurrilous and libelous April 9, 2015 "Memo" that was distributed on Township letterhead blaming volunteers appointed by the previous Council to CPAC for Chemtura and the MOE's failures and abandonment of public consultation.

Now the good news. The slate has been wiped clean. We have a brand new slate of five councillors of which the only one with political experience, Bonnie Bryant, was excellent in her first council term. Yes I am very disappointed that proven honesty and credibility, even under fire, in the form of Dr. Dan Holt was not elected however I am optimistic regarding Evan B. and Nathan C. The new councillors will undoubtedly soon have the opportunity to prove their mettle. Yes mettle is necessary because complacency will be rewarded on council whereas independent thinking and councillors with the courage of their convictions are discouraged. If this Council in four years has actually made decisions in favour of the majority of us (the public) versus in favour of the already well off and influential local developers,  friends, family and colleagues then we will be blessed. 

Tuesday, October 25, 2022


 The Waterloo Region District School Board "thumping" is in the re-election of Mike Ramsay and Cindy Watson. In your face Scot P. and fellow travellors.  Also the Thursday October 20, 2022 Waterloo Region Record article titled "It is as bad as it has ever been" really took several rounds out of that Board of Trustees and their stupid infighting. It would be nice if it also resulted in changes at the top i.e. the senior staff and administration. Afterall where are they in all of this? I expect they are behind the trustees pushing them into areas other than reading, writing and arithmetic in order to deflect attention from the School Board's failures.

Murray is finally gone from Woolwich politics! Bonnie Bryant is back which is excellent! Dr. Dan Holt should have been elected over any newcomers to Woolwich and to politics in generaL. That said who knows. Maybe the two new guys in Ward 1 will be the real deal. Five out of six Woolwich Councillors are no more. That generally is good. Major change is needed and now we'll see if we get it as unlikely as that seems. 

P.S. Kudos to Jan Ligget in Cambridge who I've known for a couple of decades. 

Monday, October 24, 2022


 Based upon the evidence, reports, maps, discussed here over the last few days (plus more) it is highly probable that the entire cleanup from start to finish has simply been an exercise in public relations. Yes it has been an elaborate exercise and yes it has to date been stunningly successful. I am even going to throw TAG members one more lifeline by suggesting that if they had been involved from day one (Nov. 1989) they would not have been so co-operative, collegial and trusting of Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess much less of the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP). Nor would they have put any faith in those who appointed them to TAG namely Woolwich Township. 

I have to state that way back in the late 1990's I publicly put a sign on top of my car which read "The Cleanup is a Sham". I also had another sign of which a photo thereof ended up in the Elmira Independent newspaper. It read "Uniroyal Chemical masks chemical odours with horse manure". The second one is the funnier with the horse manure pun involved in a town with regular donations of real horse manure to the streets as well as lies, obfuscations and verbal horse manure at public meetings. My only regret now is that my intent and understanding for the first sign above  was only related to the issue at the time whether DNAPL coverup or the failure to hydraulically contain the entire Uniroyal Chemical shallow aquifers from discharging to the Canagagigue Creek. As omniscient as stating in the 1990s that "The Cleanup is a Sham" was, in fact even I did not realize the depth and breadth of the power and dishonesty of all the involved parties. To have believed then that they had zero intentions of fully restoring our aquifers, our Creek (the "Gig") and of cleaning up their site would have lit a fuse that nobody could have extinguished.  That is precisely why all the private deals were made between Uniroyal and the MOE, Uniroyal and the Region of Waterloo and Uniroyal and Woolwich Township. They were private and only portions disclosed to the public. The palatable portions that is. Nobody made any private deals with APTE, the Elmira Environmental Hazards Team, CEAC etc. However at a later date many private deals were made between a couple of influential leaders of APTE which did cause a rupture within APTE to the thrill of Uniroyal and the APTE leadership. They were home free with the excellent former APTE members gone including Susan Rupert, Rich Clausi, Esther Thur, myself Al Marshall and later Dr. Henry Regier. If only the remaining honest APTE members had asked more questions and demanded satisfactory answers rather than relying on faith in their leadership. 

There have been three dates in the history of on-site excavation of contamination such as sludges, drums and solid wastes. Liquid wastes however have freely flowed into the Canagagigue Creek mostly untreated from 1943 until 1965-70.  The three solids and sludges excavation dates are 1970, 1986-89 and 1993. After 1965-70 liquid wastes were supposed to have been somewhat treated by the then new Elmira Sewage Treatment Plant.  The "treatment" however was actually designed for bacterial treatment of human wastes with Uniroyal wastes being at best partially treated and at worst wholly untreated such as NDMA and others. In 1997 a partial, as in south-west corner only of the shallow aquifer, hydraulic containment via "pump & treat" technology was implemented. Yet again where do you think the reduced in concentration liquid wastes ended up? Of course right back into the Creek. 

The 1970 excavations merely removed toxic wastes from both the west and east sides of the Creek and then reburied them into the leaking "Consolidation Pits" namely RPE-4 & 5. What a filthy joke! The 1986-89 excavations actually removed again west and some east side drums and sludges and sent them allegedly off-site. I have never seen  any documentation proving any such disposal and likely never will. The 1993 excavation of RPE-4 & 5 could somewhat be seen from off-site several hundred metres away. Those wastes ended up in the Mausoleum aka the "Envirodome" and several years later were transported to Corunna, Ontario. I do believe that there likely is honest evidence of the 1999  shipments to Corunna..

There are two burning questions for me. ONE: Did The 1986-89 Excavations Actually Leave the Site? and TWO: Did the 1993 Excavation of RPE 4&5 Actually Empty Those Pits of Their Contents? From several hundred metres away honest citizens could not tell versus bought and paid for employees/contractors present on site. Bought and paid for plus bound by NDAs i.e. Non-Disclosure Agreements Uniroyal insisted their contractors sign prior to being awarded cleanup contracts. The 1999 removal of wastes from the Envirodome to Corunna would have been a more difficult task to fudge as then readily visible wastes left behind would  be forever visible to anyone entering the Envirodome versus covering up the excavated areas in 1986-89 and 1993 with several feet of soil. 

Citizens were verbally lied to repeatedly regarding the lack of need for shallow aquifer hydraulic containment on the east side of the Creek. We were never told that there was any flow from Uniroyal's east side pits onto the Stroh property nor that there was a major Drain running north to south twenty some feet east of their property line with the Stroh farm and property. A corrugated steel pipe runs north to south into the Stroh Drain at the northernmost end of the Drain. It collects groundwater most likely from both properties. There is also evidence of manmade sub-surface pipes or trenches on the Uniroyal property heading directly towards the pipe that discharges into the Stroh Drain. Finally there has been years of excavations (86-90, 93 ) in and around the property line between the two properties that could easily have resulted in additional drains or trenches being installed for longterm drainage of liquid contaminants including groundwater into the Stroh Drain pipe installed approximately in 1983 although possibly a little later.  

When one is dealing with proven gild the lily, bullsh.t artists one can not assume that anything they say is 100% truthful. This is especially true when they have made self-serving deals with all the formal groups, parties and authorities. I believe that none of them have the morals or ethics NOT to divert contaminated liquids, ground and surface water onto a neighbour's property to save themselves millions of dollars in cleanup costs and to minimize the apparent extent of environmental damage that they have done. 


Saturday, October 22, 2022


 Here are two issues. The second major "cleanup" of Uniroyal from 1986-1989 and allegedly where the sludges and other wastes went and the extraordinarily convenient/weird sudden discovery of NDMA in a September 1989 water sample from Elmira's south wellfield. Heck we might even discuss the somewhat aborted 1969-1970 on-site cleanup and how the company cheaped out on that.

If even half of the toxic wastes Uniroyal claims to have been shipped off-site between 1986 and 1989 are true then the company spent millions of dollars in excavations, trucking and disposal fees presumably at appropriate  locations (Corunna, Ont.?) BEFORE the Ontario Ministry of Environment had a single water test showing that Elmira's drinking wells were contaminated. Hmm!

These efforts followed up on the 1969-1970 cleanout and lining of some pits and ponds on the Uniroyal site. Supposedly the west sign ponds/lagoons were emptied of sludges and then clay lined. The clay is supposed to have come from a farm north of Elmira.  Boy would I like to examine that farm for any large holes in the ground. Hmm or perhaps Uniroyal kindly refilled those gaping holes with some of the toxic filth that they claimed to have sent to Corunna. In fact most of the reports listed in my last Thursday's post here state only that sludges and wastes were removed/excavated whereas Conestoga Rovers on behalf of Uniroyal claim that they were shipped off-site. I believe that there is all of one claim that they went to Corunna, Ontario  site of an expensive toxic waste site, with real clay at depth beneath the wastes. I say real clay at depth because the clay brought from "...a  farm north of Elmira" didn't cut it. Estimates of leakage out the bottom AFTER the clay lining of the west side ponds and lagoons was 3,400 litres per day by both Morrison & Beatty and CH2MHILL consultants. Good work there Uniroyal. 

At the same time the two "Consolidation Pits" on the east side (RPE-4 & 5) were allegedly lined with some kind of plastic liner. These are known to be susceptible to both chemical and mechanical rupture.  As was mentioned earlier  here ( Thursday October 20, 2022 ) metal drums being dropped haphazardly into the allegedly newly plastic lined RPE-4 & 5 likely ruptured. I would suggest that they also likely pierced the plastic liner. Other issues include Uniroyal's penchant for half hearted excavations. Every bucketful costs extra money in time, labour, transportation and disposal fees. These half hearted excavations include admissions to CPAC from employee Jeff Merriman that the company excavated until they could neither see nor smell contamination. This was ridiculous as long time employess during on-site visits with the public usually could NOT any longer smell the stench on site that visitors could. Proper testing at the limits of excavation were not done.   

Other on-site "cleanup" issues include various pits  and ponds requiring further excavation and cleanup years later AFTER allegedly being done professionally in the first place. I apologize to readers for using the word "professional" in the same sentence as Uniroyal Chemical or any of its' corporate successors. Perhaps a better choice of words might be "bought and paid for" regarding cleanup efforts. AFTER the 1986-1989 excavations at RPW-5, 6, 7 the Ministry of Environment advised and found DNAPL  at the bottom of those ponds. Maybe it was six inches below the ground surface and Jeff and friends could not see or smell it. A similar problem with RPE-3 on the east side. Same with TPW-2 (tar pit west).  Excavations to remove some DNAPL occurred in the fall of 1993 at both RPW-5 and at TPW-2. We were advised at the time that wastes remained at TPW-2 but that one they were intermingled with municipal wastes from the closed on-site municipal landfill (M2) and that further excavations to finish the job could undermine the supports of a nearby tower or tank on site. The history of BAE-1 (Burial Area 1) south and east of RPE-5 is similar. It was supposed to be part of the 1969-70 consolidation of toxic buried wastes from the site. Instead only some of the buried drums in it were put into RPE 4 & 5 whereas others were actually reburied nearby in pits RB-1 and 2. So lets get this clear. Thousands of drums of toxic liquids and sludges were buried in BAE-1 between the early 1950s and 1970. Then some of them were put into RPE-4 & 5 and others reburied into RB-1 & 2.  Finally we are advised by Conestoga Rovers (CRA) on behalf of Uniroyal Chemical that BAE-1, RB-1 & 2 were excavated in 1987 and shipped off site. WHERE? No mention of that. One of the reports agrees with CRA and that is CH2MHILL. The Terreaqua report (Aug. 1987) actually suggests that RB-1 & 2 still contain drums as of that date. The other two reports R. Hillier (1990) and Jackman (1985) do not mention RB-1 & 2 at all??? What the heck??? Granted the Jackman (1985) report was done prior to the alleged excavation and off-site shipment. 

There are other issues. As per the Terreaqua report "Reburial and other re-disposal practices have seen the transportation of wastes to many locations at the site (some of which are unknown)." WOW!  Another discrepancy in the reports is CRA's claim that RPW-6 & 7 were cleaned out and shipped off-site in the mid 1980s whereas CH2MHILL's report states that they were merely cleaned out (not shipped off-site) in the SUMMER OF 1989, one month prior to the MOE deciding decades too late to test Elmira's drinking water for NDMA. A skeptic could be forgiven for wondering if CRA/Uniroyal had a serious and pressing reason for the public to believe these wastes were long gone before the MOE's stunning announcement of contaminated drinking water in Elmira. A skeptic could also be forgiven for wondering if CRA were practicing "wishful thinking" with their repeated claims of "off-site disposal". So far I've only found one other report that only confirms one of these many excavations actually being shipped off-site. Hmm could it be that no paperwork was ever provided to third parties proving off-site disposal in the 1986-1989 "cleanup"? Is it possible that even if it were off-site disposal that Uniroyal Chemical, the masters of cheap toxic waste disposal, didn't send the wastes to a properly licensed toxic waste landfill? Maybe even NOT to any type of licensed landfill??? 

None of this is idle speculation. Do I have an idea where some of this MIA (missing in action) toxic wastes ended up? Yes I do and there is both circumstantial and witness evidence for that. There are also some unusual photographs that need explaining. To date Uniroyal and corporate successors with the full hearted support of all the guilty political authorities at several levels have managed to stifle debate and real public consultation. Confronting cowards who hide behind almost equally guilty political bodies and who have a ton of money to then hide behind our courts is difficult. Finally keep something in mind. In the extremely unlikely scenario of Uniroyal/Lanxess being able and willing to produce strong evidence that their toxic wastes ended up in Corunna or a better location; they still have a problem. Exactly how much of their toxic wastes did they send off-site? 10% or 50% or more or less?  If they produce strong and reliable evidence of say 100,000 tonnes of waste being sent to Corunna (eg.) then where is the rest of it? And if they actually cleaned up only to the standard of visual and human smell  did they then require further ongoing in ground containment or remediation? I believe that there is evidence of this ongoing "remediation" that requires discussion and clarification from the current wholly dishonest public communicator, Lanxess Canada.   

Friday, October 21, 2022


 This is likely going to take a couple of days or more to elucidate here. We begin with the unholy trinity namely Uniroyal Chemical, the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Woolwich Twp. One can also include the Region of Waterloo if one wishes. For decades Woolwich Township have coddled and protected Uniroyal even while allegedly talking tough to them. In fact the whole "cleanup" has been nothing more than a sham and for appearances. Appearances primarily to avoid riots in the street and Uniroyal management being run out of town on a rail. The sham has included Woolwich likely via the corporate strategy of blackmail and extortion. As long known by honest brokers every single landfill inside and near outside of Elmira has been filled with toxic industrial wastes including those from Uniroyal Chemical. These landfills generally do not have leachate controls or much else and hence they leak both into groundwater as well as those close enough into the Canagagigue Creek. And into Shirt Factory Creek. And into Landfill Creek etc. That combined with the Elmira Sewage Treatment Plant overflows due to local Infill & Infiltration issues combined with heavy rains causing untreated and or undertreated discharges to the Creek, basically neither the Region nor the Township are in any position to lecture or hector Uniroyal and corporate successors about their environmental failures. Of this they have been TOLD.

Then we have the issue of Uniroyal having a history of partial and inadequate cleanups on their property. This includes RPE-3, RPW-5, TPW-2, RPW-6, and other assorted pits and ponds that they haven't even pretended to clean up. Oh and of course BAE-1 took two separate cleanups seventeen years apart to get the job done or at least allegedly done. Because of this history there is concern that for example the September-December 1993 cleanup of the "consolidation pits" RPE-4 & 5 may have not been done properly or fully. Likely RPW-7 can also be added to that list (DNAPL issues). Finally RB-1 & 2 are also problematic. 

Another issue which we will explore further tomorrow regards the so called surprise water test results that came back in November 1989. Allegedly the Ontario Ministry of Environment tested for NDMA for the first time in September 1989 and in November found NDMA exceedances in Elmira's well water. Such incredibly convenient timing as we shall see. 

Thursday, October 20, 2022


 It is also amazing how many other bodies fell in line with the Ministry's bullsh.t. I've just re-reviewed five heavy duty reports dated 1985, 1987, 1990,  Feb. 1991 and August 1991.  The authors in order are MOE & GRCA, Terreaqua, Bob Hillier M.O.E., CH2MHILL and lastly Conestoga Rovers. The first report by Jackman (MOE), Ralston (MOE) & Smith (GRCA) seems to be the one to follow at least as far as Hillier (MOE-1990), CH2MHILL (Feb. 1991) on behalf of the Region of Waterloo and Conestoga Rovers on behalf of Uniroyal are concerned. Terreaqua written in 1987 for the MOE is much more independent and in my opinion professional, and honest, lacking in bullsh.t etc. 

I've also reviewed today various hydrogeological reports regarding Varnicolor Chemical. Oh my but their groundwater contamination was extraordinary. So were the concentrations of toxic chemicals in their soils. We can of course further discuss concentrations of trichloroethylene in parts per million in their groundwater. We can also discuss toluene in parts per million which is about 1,000 times higher concentration than most discussion of groundwater which is only in parts per billion (i.e. 1,000 times smaller). Oddly extremely little chlorobenzene was found on their Union St. site. Was this because there was very little, which is odd for a paint and solvent recycler who graciously shared their wastes with the natural environment, or was it due to not sampling for chlorobenzene most of the time? What a coincidence that the two major compounds attributed to Uniroyal Chemical, including eventually by themselves as well, were mostly found in small quantities or not at all at Varnicolor. This of course is especially odd as other Uniroyal signature chemicals were found in shallow soils and groundwater on the Varnicolor site. There is also the small problem of "Digger Dave" Holmes. He wrote and signed an Affidavit which I did not see until years afterwards. It was dated December 6, 1989 BEFORE I made my formal complaint to the Ontario MOE about Varnicolor Chemical. His detailed and specific complaint about seeing solvents in the sub-surface while digging on the site along with several years of groundwater testing by Canviro showing solvent contamination did not deter the MOE from coming immediately to Varnicolor's defence when I went public.   

There is of course the issue of NDMA on the Varnicolor site. This was always minimized via the use of higher Method Detection Limits as well as by very limited sampling. It also helped that NDMA flows at the speed of groundwater i.e. is not retarded in its' flow as most chemicals are. I believe that  Varnicolor's  contributions to NDMA in the Elmira Aquifers (MU & ML) occurred mostly prior to the late 1970's or mid 1980's. Above and beyond low levels of dissolved NDMA  still in their groundwater in the early 1990s there were a couple of outstanding detections namely 9 parts per billion (ppb) in the soil approximately ten feet below surface as well as 14 ppb found in a sump on their site. The sump was a tank farm sump which is revealing. 

There was a professional report published in 1977 indicating massive levels of NDMA on the Uniroyal Chemical site in their waste waters. This was twelve years before either Uniroyal Chemical or the Ontario MOE decided to test for NDMA in Elmira's drinking water. Drinking water that is obtained from the same aquifer as was located directly beneath Uniroyal with spots where there were toxic waste pits immediately above the aquifer and zero aquitard (low permeability soils) between. In February 1988 close to two years prior to the MOE announcing that NDMA was found in drinking wells E7 and E9, NDMA was found just off-site of Uniroyal in well CRA 3. This monitoring well  was between Uniroyal and the south wellfield (E7/E9). Apparently neither Uniroyal nor the Ontario MOE thought to immediately test Elmira's drinking water for the highly carcinogenic NDMA. Allegedly at least they didn't. 

Back to Varnicolor's Lot 91 located in the floodplain of the Canagagigue Creek and just south of Uniroyal Chemical. Massive soil contamination by toxic chemicals was discovered there after yours truly blew the whistle. Both heavy groundwater contamination and gross soil contamination in another area of very thin aquitard between the surface soils and the Municipal Aquifer (MU) below. No problem for the MOE. Just lie!  Hell, eventually even PCBs were found in a buried drum on the site. Along with lots of other buried drums containing various solvents. 

Then of course we have the issue of the rapid pace of very quiet on-site cleanup at the Uniroyal Chemical plant BEFORE the announcement of NDMA in the south wellfield. My goodness but weren't they fortunate to have been doing so much cleanup and in fact completing it just before the NDMA announcement by the MOE? In fact they removed tonnes of toxic wastes from both sides of the Creek on their site twice. Such exquisite timing for the second one. One of their reports however does mention that drums likely ruptured during earlier transfers from their old repository into the new. Gee I wonder if those ruptured drums may have also torn the plastic lining allowing yet more leakage into the natural environment? Oddly though they stopped this transfer in 1969-70 from pit BAE-1 into RPE 4 & 5 and actually reburied them again into two nearby pits designated as RB-1 & 2. RB was supposed to stand for ReBuried but personally I kind of think in reference to the environment that Royally Buggered is more accurate. 

There is more but this is enough for readers to digest right now.


Wednesday, October 19, 2022


 The "news" is simply a further communication I've had with various media personnel. I will shortly here produce the single paragraph I sent to them yesterday and today.  The "clarification" has been somewhat explained in posts over the last few days but will be hopefully further clarified now.  In a sense there are two diversions. My understanding is that the first diversion which is on the Martin property was simply to redirect some of the flow from "Martin's" Creek via a board which can be inserted across the creek to deepen the flow and divert it into a pipe that flows from the creek immediately north of the swimming pond, southwards into the pond itself. This flow actually can occur when the depth is high enough such that the board is not needed. Again multiple witnesses have seen this.

The second diversion simply refers to the 1983 production of the Stroh Drain. This diversion intercepts off-site surface water gravity flow from Uniroyal Chemical PLUS it's underground corrugated steel pipe at the north end of the (Stroh) Drain indicates upgradient groundwater flow. Upgradient groundwater can include the Stroh property as well as from the Uniroyal Chemical property up by the former BAE-1 pit south and east of RPE-5. Local groundwater  flow can also be redirected  from the former swampy area due west of the Drain and on the Uniroyal property simply by the six foot deep Drain opening up a preferential pathway for the Uniroyal on-site contaminated groundwater to flow.

"Media folks: Along with the copy of my October 14/22 Elmira Advocate Blog post sent to you, Woolwich Township and the Region of Waterloo I have since sent the following two paragraphs to Regional Councillors and the second one to Woolwich Councillors. The purpose was a little reminder that issues and failures do not magically disappear with the end of term of a council.  It is also a little heads up that history will not be kind to those who have either actively or passively  permitted Uniroyal Chemical and corporate successors to escape both moral and financial responsibility for twenty-two Old Order Mennonite families downstream in the Canagagigue Creek between Uniroyal/Lanxess and the Grand River. Lastly the intentional diversion of both Uniroyal Chemical contaminated groundwater and surface water into the Stroh Drain which has supplied part of the water supply to the Martin swimming pond for decades is an abomination and I believe criminal. This diversion has been seen first hand by myself, Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach and former Woolwich Councillor Mark Bauman. I am doubtful that Mark will recall seeing or speaking about it whereas I have confidence in the integrity of Sebastian."

Tuesday, October 18, 2022


 Well frankly I can't say that I am even remotely surprised anymore whereas you, readers, may not have attempted this fruitless exercise before. I attempted to report what I believe is a criminal offence to the Crown Attorney first and then secondly to the Waterloo Regional Police.  I went to the Crown Attorney first due to my lack of confidence in the Regional Police being able or willing to wrap their heads around the suggestion/allegation? that I e-mailed out to our local media and others this morning. That suggestion/allegation was that the man made Stroh Drain was intentionally and knowingly connected to what I've been advised is Martin's Creek which starts on the Stroh property and runs through the Martin property on it's way to the Canagagigue Creek further south. The problem is that the Stroh Drain/Martin's Creek runs beside a man made swimming pond and in fact there is a diversion from the Drain/Creek into the swimming pond. This diversion/pipe & more has been observed by a number of witnesses.

This swimming pond I believe has been used by generations of young Mennonite children probably both family members and neighbours. The problem is grossly compounded in that the 1983 upstream Stroh Drain addition has diverted shallow contaminated groundwater from the former Uniroyal Chemical onto the Stroh property and downstream into the Martin swimming pond as well as into the Canagagigue Creek. It is also, based upon the topographical contours (i.e. ground surface elevation), probable that contaminated surface water has also been  collected by the Stroh Drain and then entered the Martin's swimming pond downstream. Some of the toxic chemicals involved include NDMA, dioxins/furans, DDT, lindane, benzene, chlorophenols and a host of other compounds. 

In my wee, legally uneducated mind, diverting toxic chemicals from one property to another and then into a children (& adults) swimming pond is a criminal act. A criminal act that not only has never been prosecuted but in fact never even been investigated  by any of our authorities. This includes the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MECP). I say this based upon my personally having brought this allegation/problem to their attention as well as to our local Woolwich Council multiple times since 2014 when I first learned about the presence of the Stroh Drain.

So the Crown Attorneys office this morning refused to accept my allegation/request for investigation. They sent me to the Regional Police (Leslie) who was very polite and courteous and hopelessly unhelpful. Her first suggestion that I contact the Ontario Ministry of Environment was unceremoniously rejected by me with a very brief description as to why. Her second suggestion after she consulted with a colleague(s) was that I contact the MNR (Ministry of Natural Resources). That too I rejected. So the moral of the story is that unless you personally assault a fellow human being or intentionally infect them with a fatal disease with witnesses present etc. then you too can get away with murder. Hmm again I am not a lawyer. Is "murder" too strong of a word? I don't know.

Gee maybe I should send this morning's e-mail directly to Lanxess Canada, corporate successors to Uniroyal, and ask for their opinion on the matter.  Afterall our local authorities have been asking for their input and direction and expertise and delegating full cleanup control and authority to them for the last thirty plus years. Maybe Lanxess would like to investigate themselves (corporately speaking)  again and decide whether criminal charges are appropriate or not.


Monday, October 17, 2022


 Recent events have gotten my goat. CPAC members yet again have stepped up and sent written concerns to some mayoralty candidates as well as to our local media. I have sent e-mails plus my Friday Elmira Advocate post regarding the failure of our local media to include in their Lanxess/MECP stories about the Elmira cleanup, the glaring fact that there is serious and informed opposition to their alleged efforts. 

I too have been busy sending out written concerns to our long buried heads in the sand local authorities. Let me be clear, I no longer expect them to do the right thing much less even seriously inquire as to what our concerns are.  My written comments are simply to have a written record available in the future for the time when common sense and decency return and environmental justice is given to both the natural local environment and to as many still living human victims as possible. 

Besides sending out my Friday Elmira Advocate post to our two local councils, namely Woolwich Council and Waterloo Region Council  I have included a separate note for each. My two brief notes could be described as "cheeky" whereas I prefer to think of them as a blunt assessment of the past and current cleanup situation here in Elmira and five miles down the Canagagigue Creek to the Grand River. I do not apologize either for my bluntness nor for my conclusions that our authorities have made private agreements with both our largest local polluter and with their alleged regulator (MECP). These deals have never been in the public interest but solely in the self-serving interest of the parties to them. Following are the included brief notes to each.

Regional Council:  To a certain extent I can understand that if the municipal representative whether Township or City does not raise a local matter or issue at Regional Council then it is very easy to dismiss concerns from the public. That said the "local" issue of Uniroyal Chemical did become both a national and international issue thirty-two years ago and you should have continued to pay attention despite Woolwich mayors & former Regional Chair giving you the all clear and everything is under control message. It's never been under control and while local politicians are the guiltiest there is enough discredit to go around.  

Woolwich Council:  While I don't expect any action whatsoever from you at this late date on this matter nevertheless I will give councillors some advice. Delegating any single issue to only one or two of you while the rest ignore the matter/problem is a recipe for disaster. I suggest that through all fault of your own, with only the tiniest push from me and others six or seven years ago, combined with further poor decision making since; that Woolwich Township are now considered by some to be the Dogpatch of Waterloo Region. This is unfortunate and if the "Uniroyal trials" as suggested by Pat Potter decades ago ever occurs, your acquiescence and deaf and blind faith in both the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Unroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/LANXESS will bite both you and all of Woolwich Township in the behind. Your names will eventually be forgotten but Woolwich Township's name will be besmirched forever.

Patrick please feel free to rate my "delivery" on this note. 

The comment to Patrick immediately above is a less than subtle comeback regarding a recent comment of his that I felt to be less than fully accurate or clear.

Saturday, October 15, 2022


 CPAC used to stand for the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee which was shut down corruptly, dishonestly and maliciously by Chemtura, Min. of Environment, Sandy Shantz and Mark Bauman in September 2015. They invented a "crisis" to use as an excuse to remove the volunteers who accepted appointment to CPAC by the previous Woolwich Council. 

CPAC now stands for Citizens Public Advisory Committee and consists of nine local citizens who continue to stay informed despite, along with all the rest of the public, being both muzzled and refused the right to participate fully in a huge public interest issue affecting Woolwich, Elmira and downstream communities including Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge.  

CPAC members have recently communicated with some Woolwich political candidates in the upcoming municipal election on October 24/22.  These communications have included a request to restore proper, honest and representative public consultation. Currently all TAG members are vetted and approved on the basis of their professional credentials as much as their unwillingness to rock the boat by disagreeing with GHD, Lanxess and the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MECP). Professionally these credentialed volunteers work for companies in the environmental field who would appear to require the good will of the MECP in order to advance their clients' interests. In any other municipality this would raise Conflict-Of-Interest concerns but not in Woolwich.

Some CPAC members have also communicated with both myself and the Woolwich Observer regarding their story in Thursday's edition comparing Indigenous Risk Assessment issues with those of the Old Order Mennonites living and working immediately downstream of Lanxess Canada (formerly Uniroyal Chemical). As both are minority groups I suppose that I can see similarities in how they are treated by our authorities. Among many differences however is that Indigenous groups have become active and politicized to redress their grievances whereas Old Order Mennonites have not. As a result the health of Old Order Mennonites downstream (Canagagigue Creek) have been both ignored and abused by Uniroyal/Lanxess, MECP and the government of Ontario for decades. These parties are masters of lip service, manipulation, puffery and obfuscation. Local and provincial politicians have clearly decided their course of action and inaction years ago and it does NOT include intelligent and informed citizen input. All input has been relegated to appearances and tokenism for those deemed acceptable by the polluter and his fellow travellors with serious critics of the cleanup being muzzled and given the mushroom treatment. 

Friday, October 14, 2022


 Yesterday's article in the Observer by Leah Gerber was titled "Environmental studies that look at impact on Indigenous groups". The first time that I read it yesterday I was flabbergasted. I felt that any discussion of Indigenous groups in the same article as the pretend cleanup of the Canagagigue Creek was way beyond irrelevant  and ridiculous. I read it again yesterday and was less offended and disgusted. A third reading this morning has further reduced the shock value and instead has me trying to minimize the somewhat weird comparison and instead look more closely at what the purpose of the article is. What exactly is its' message?

 If author Leah Gerber wants to suggest that minority groups in general are ignored and minimized by the Risk Assessment process as well as the overall environmental cleanup process, then I do not disagree. However I can't find that statement anywhere in her article. The fact is that Uniroyal Chemical cheerfully located here for three reasons. They had unfettered access to a soon to be on-site toxic waste sewer (Canagagigue Creek).  The downstream residents consisted of twenty-two Old Order Mennonite families who using the somewhat crude expression "would not say sh.t if their mouths were full of it." In other words they would not take Uniroyal Chemical to court or even publicly harass or condemn them for their both legal and illegal environmental activities. Thirdly Uniroyal had to have been assured by the local politicians that every possible method  would be used to run interference for the company as they destroyed the local environment.

Ms. Gerber and the Observer failed to interview opposing viewpoints for this article for which I am disgusted. She asked for and received from me a relevant recent report on sediment and fish testing in the creek. I expected once she had read it a followup interview or questions. Instead nothing although her article does interview Tiffany Svensson, Chair of TAG. Tiffany is paid $1,000 per meeting either by Woolwich Township directly or by Lanxess indirectly and she is not unbiased. 

There are multiple inaccurate and misleading statements in this article such as the inference that direct comparisons occur between soil, sediment and fish tissue toxic contamination and "...established acceptable levels for these chemicals...". ALL of these acceptable levels/criteria are grossly exceeded in and around the Creek.  Also the Risk Assessment for the Creek does NOT reflect the "...unique consideration..." of the Old Order Mennonites living along the Creek. It purports to and gives lip service only to them. Just like the ridiculous results of the Risk Assessment in Pictou Landing Nova Scotia advising that environmental and human health risks were acceptable so to does this homegrown perversion of honest Risk Assessments do the same. Both Risk Assessments have been done a half a century AFTER the toxic dumping ended and huge health effects have already taken lives. The same thing has happened at Grassy Narrows in northern Ontario with provincial and municipal governments delaying for decades to allow the contamination and human misery to wash away. 

Tiffany claims that "...Western risk assessment method allows for [unique populations to be represented] but it does require people who inderstand the uniqueness of the people group (receptor) to contribute in the review process." This is utter bullsh.t  and if true merely shows how a polluter led risk assessment can be perverted and twisted into saving millions of dollars of necessary and appropriate cleanup. 

So Woolwich Observer what is your message? Are you yet one more apologist for Uniroyal Chemical and corporate successors or are you  raising awareness of the deplorable state of Risk Assessments locally?

Thursday, October 13, 2022


 At least it is for residents, citizens and the local media. Apparently not so much for the Lions Club in Elmira who neither initiated said question themselves nor allowed if past their screening of alleged questions from the floor. Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record had a story titled "Township residents mine politicians on gravel pits" written by Paige Desmond. 

Interestingly the Record e-mailed a question regarding support for a moratorium on new gravel pits to 40 registered municipal candidates. The vast majority responded in the affirmative with a few notable dissenters or non-responders namely Paul Bolger (Ward 3),  Eric Schwindt (Ward 2) and unsurprisingly to me Murray Martin (Ward 3) in Woolwich Township.   

One of the big issues is the incredibly stupid yet self-serving (to the industry) fact that absolutely zero market need for a new gravel pit is required. In other words it's all about a plethora of gravel pits spread out throughout Waterloo Region for the convenience of the industry at the expense of the health and welfare of both citizens and the environment. 

I have elaborated here many times on the drawbacks and damages done by the aggregate industry with essentially uncontrolled proliferation throughout the countryside.

Wednesday, October 12, 2022


 First of all there was a good turnout of citizens. I would suggest maybe 75-100 although that is strictly a guess. Secondly I met a number of local friends and acquaintances and chatted with them as well as with a couple of candidates prior to the start of the meeting. All good. Less good was the question format. 95% of the questions came from the Lions Club. O.K. maybe they organized the event but their questions were only barely illuminating of the candidates positions. Very few of the questions were much more than fluff. Flowers and trees in the downtown are not the biggest issues. Only two candidates even mentioned the contaminated Elmira Aquifers and that is all they did (i.e. mention them). One candidate mentioned the Elmira BY-Pass (again mentioned only). One candidate mentioned the proposed truck parking lot beside Bolender Park and the Splashpad. Nobody at all mentioned the shame and disaster of Hawkridge Homes residential subdivision quietly getting the green light across the road from the former Uniroyal Chemical (now Lanxess) and from Sulco. 

There were maybe three or four written questions allegedly from the floor at the very end. Absolutely no hands in the air to ask questions were allowed. I'm sorry but this meeting was way too far controlled and the questions way too much manipulated and selective and screened probably to avoid serious discussion or debate. Not good enough.

Tuesday, October 11, 2022


 Hmm my calendar says the meeting is between 6-6:30 pm. I guess I'm either going to be there at 6 pm. or get off my butt and confirm the time. Either way it's at Lions Hall which is on Snyder Ave. on the north side of the Woolwich Arena. Folks this is an important meeting and I expect to learn a lot about all the Ward 1 candidates. Yes I have expressed here my favourite however I still want to hear from all of them. 

My expectation is that there will be a few questions from audience members that are not relevant to a municipal candidate. That is O.K. as maybe some candidates will politely so advise the questioner whereas others simply might not know what their jurisdiction as a municipal councillor is. We need to know the breadth and depth of knowledge of our candidates. 

I expect that a number of indeed local issues will arise such as the long proposed Elmira By-Pass (north-south & vise-versa)). Probably there might be questions about the status of the long proposed and quietly/privately settled Hawkridge Homes subdivision across Union St. from Lanxess and Sulco (CCC). There may be complaints and concerns about the proposed and likely to proceed truck parking lot beside Bolender Park and the splashpad. There may even be complaints about the lip service the Region gives to Elmira residents when the Region's construction impedes, damages and provokes them and their property.

Citizens you need to see, hear and contribute to local democracy and tonite is your chance. 

Saturday, October 8, 2022


 Generally people are very reluctant to use certain words. These include coverup, corruption, pretend cleanup etc. It is much too easy for the professional liars and their fellow travellors to cast dispersions along the lines of well that's just your opinion, you can't prove it. Well actually there is lots of evidence of coverups, corruption and pretend cleanups however by demanding an unreasonable level of proof one can deny almost anything. Good gosh there are holocaust deniers and there are even Americans denying that Joe Biden fairly won the U.S. Presidency. So when it comes to the environmental coverup in Elmira it's especially easy for the likes of Sandy Shantz to deny it. As far as she is concerned if a noble corporation like Lanxess say so it must be so. Furthermore if a Ministry of the Provincial government (MECP) says so as well, then it's as good as written in stone for her. Add in the rest of the fellow travelers such as RMOW, GRCA, consultants hired by Lanxess etc. and she will brook no dissent.

Her position and behaviour in support of Lanxess Canada will be judged harshly by history. Maybe even sooner. The School Board (WRDSB) is under attack. Hockey Canada is under attack. At some point Elmira/Uniroyal will enter the realm of Grassy Narrows (mercury) folklore and infamy when it comes to Delay, Delay, Delay. We have scandals within the Waterloo Region Police Service (WRPS). Our Canadian Armed Forces are under attack for their sexist and worse behaviour. People are beginning at long last to understand that our institutions are way beyond flawed. They are unaccountable and non-transparent. This includes our local, emerging environmental scandal. Memos and e-mails are being written and sent to people and places you would not expect regarding that. 

Some of the local co-opted citizens are gone. Others have passed on. Our local citizens are changing dramatically. Many of them are paying attention to the world that their children are growing up in. The local world that is, right here in Woolwich Township. 


Friday, October 7, 2022


I did some serious thinking yesterday when I learned through the Waterloo Region Record that the Crown (prosecutor) had decided not to pursue the criminal charges of assault and uttering threats to two brothers, presumably co-owners, of Milton's Bar & Grill. I was unimpressed with various arguments from the Crown prosecutor suggesting that apologies to the victim  (but a Not Guilty plea to the charges) and a donation to charity helped make the decision to drop the criminal charges. I was more impressed with the claim by the Crown that the victim who suffers from autism and anxiety leading to panic attacks was unwilling to go to court and be examined and cross-examined in the case.

Then today Luisa D"Amato straightened out my thinking with her Opinion piece titled "We all got cheated when charges were dropped". First of all there was a ton of evidence regarding the threats and the physical assault upon the man who entered the restaurant with his service dog, looking for a meal. There is video evidence and there are a number of witnesses who were present at the assault and forcible removal of the man who are able and willing to testify. Can you imagine if the charge was murder and the Crown dared to suggest that charges be dropped because the victim was unable or unwilling to testify? That would be ridiculous just as in this situation. Does the Crown wish to send a message to violent criminals that if they either fully intimidate their rape and or assault victims into not testifying or worse yet kill them that charges will not be laid and or dropped at a later date? I certainly hope not. In this particular case it is quite possible/likely that the two brothers involved are not and hopefully never have been violent criminals. It is possible that they made a huge error in judgement but they most certainly crossed a line the moment they instigated a physical altercation with their customer. For this assault charges are warranted. Presumably after a conviction the Judge would consider carefully the appropriate penalty. It would be far less odious if the Judge determined that the apologies, charitable donations and loss of business and reputation were sufficient penalty than the dropping of all charges. That is not right.     

Thursday, October 6, 2022


First of all you need to know something about Public Consultation. Fundamentally it is an intentional sham and facade by our governments used to legitimize bad and self-serving decision making. From the very beginning (Jan. 1992) both the Ministry of Environment and Woolwich Township needed to include the public in a committee (Uniroyal Public Advisory Committee-UPAC) mostly to give the impression that they were open and accountable. In fact the committee was stacked with Uniroyal supporters both government, bureaucratic and even former employees. The alleged sudden openness was due to the fact that decades of municipal and provincial "supervision" of Uniroyal Chemical's gross pollution had done little or nothing. The Canagagigue Creek was polluted and sick albeit less so after partial treatment of Uniroyal liquid wastes  by the new Sewage Treatment Plant and after whole scale, daily dumping into the east side pits and ponds ended around 1970. Elmira's groundwater which provided our drinking water from both the North and South Wellfields was grossly contaminated. The aforementioned improvements were way too little, way too late. Today's post somewhat is an addendum to yesterday's which was about both the WRDSB and Woolwich Township marginalizing and minimizing legitimate and informed citizen participation in public interest matters whether education or environmental and human health abuse from intentional pollution.

Governments are generally filled with ambitious, attention seeking individuals who surely do not want to have to make an honest living by doing the daily 9-5 or worse grind. This of course is a generalization and in fact I'm confident that in the beginning maybe as high as 20% actually start in politics to help their fellow citizens. Over time corruption, lying and disillusionment reduce that 20% drastically. Once you have the large majority in it for their own gain how do you possibly think that decisions will all be made  in the public interest? In fact decisions are made to help those who have been instrumental in getting the politicians elected in the first place. The polite term may include lobbying but I prefer payoffs. 

Folks it's all about appearances. Politicians and bureaucrats at all levels are constrained by petty things like constitutions, Charter of Rights and other laws. They are constrained by the British North America Act as to where their responsibilities and jurisdiction lies. The Feds control funds to the Provinces who also control funds/grants to municipalities. It can be especially galling for municipal politicians to be beholden to other idiot politicians further up the food chain (provincial/federal) than they are. Hence NO politician voluntarily gives up power or authority to anyone especially local citizens who while quite possibly far more informed and intelligent than they, nevertheless have no power or authority on their own. Politicians by their nature will only share when forced to. Hence committees of council are impotent and powerless and in most cases such as UPAC, CPAC, RAC & TAG by intent. Private environmental cleanup deals were made long ago between Woolwich, Region of Waterloo, Uniroyal Chemical and the Ministry of Environment. These deals were NOT in the public interest but solely in the interests of protecting those parties who were signatories to the deals. The public interest be damned! 


Wednesday, October 5, 2022


 First of all readers please, please read today's Waterloo Region Record article (pg. A4) written by Luisa D"Amato titled "Mike Ramsay's offence? Vehemently disagreeing with other school trustees". Otherwise you have no real basis to compare and understand this post. Luisa has literally decades of experience in following, questioning and reporting on the Waterloo Region District School Board's (WRDSB) decisions and  behaviour.

Her article today is essentially about differing opinions and how one of our local authorities are so terrified of  even publicly elected representatives disagreeing with their position on just about anything. Mike Ramsay primarily expressed his opinions and understanding of the issues under discussion to his fellow trustees. Many of us, including myself, think that his position has merit and deserves further discussion. Most (not all) of his Trustee colleagues think otherwise and voted him (possibly illegally) off the educational island last June. He has been banned from attending/voting Trustee/Board meetings since. He was also prohibited from communicating with his colleagues and from receiving reports and correspondence relevant to his job as Trustee since last June.

Flash forward to Woolwich Township. Seven years ago they arbitrarily removed CPAC who had worked as volunteers diligently for four and a half years holding both Chemtura and the Ontario Ministry of Environment's (MECP) feet to the fire. They had been appointed by the previous Woolwich Council. CPAC's actions were necessary to get the Elmira cleanup back on track after two decades of Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura running the show (investigation & cleanup) and consistently doing the least expensive, bare minimum and less. Both Chemtura and the MECP ran for help to the new, incoming Mayor Sandy Shantz. She completely rolled over to their pleas and agenda which had been proven inadequate and not in the public interest. To this day CPAC members including myself AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC are not allowed to ask any questions or offer any verbal comments at public meetings of RAC and TAG. Possibly three times a year the public are allowed to speak to RAC as a Delegation only. No questions allowed from the public. TAG prohibit all verbal comments or Delegations. Written comments may be submitted which they NEVER ask questions about and which most do not read. 

Yes there are differences between the two matters. The result however is the same. The public's opinions and comments are denied and muzzled while "good" little citizens who follow the Board/Council's position are given the podium to speak. Council members to their shame appear to fully delegate the Elmira cleanup to the Mayor and one other councillor. This does not exonerate them from responsibility for their grossly undemocratic and possibly illegal and or discriminatory behaviour towards their citizens.

Tuesday, October 4, 2022


RAC - Remediation Advisory Committee xxxx TAG - Technical Advisory Group  TAG are by far the better of the two although even they are saddled with an undemocratic and frankly contemptible public consultation process and procedures. Oh and TAG "report" to both RAC and allegedly Woolwich Council which in fact is to Mayor Sandy Shantz. She unfortunately does not report to the public who elected her but to the expectations and demands of an assorted local and wealthy cabal more intent on running Woolwich Township their way then fully in the public interest. That said I am reluctant to express support for all the details mentioned in yesterday's anonymous Comment to my post. I believe the commenter is 100% correct regarding their environmental comments such as conflicts of interest, greedy global corporations, Agent Orange, The Stroh Farm etc.  Regarding Fabians, depopulating the earth etc. I am quite honestly ignorant and will leave readers to make up their own minds. 

The second comment via e-mail I have to be a little careful with. After all it has become more than a little obvious that Sandy and friends do not approve of either my (and CPAC's) participation and most certainly our informed and reasoned opinions on what needs to be done to actually clean up Uniroyal Chemical's disgusting pollution in our soils and waters (ground & surface waters). This actually appears to include orders to TAG members to ignore input from certain informed members of the public who Sandy has prohibited from proper public participation in the cleanup of our publicy owned soil and water assets. This behaviour is to her everlasting shame although the MECP and Lanxess certainly approve.


Monday, October 3, 2022



My RAC Delegation was two pages long and I read it to RAC last Thursday evening and after the meeting was over I e-mailed it to Lisa Schaefer, Support Person, for RAC and TAG. I might add that although there were some fairly strong comments in it, I actually self-edited at least a few gratuitous comments out of it during my reading of it and then immediately prior to e-mailing it off.

Oh heck I'm going to publish my RAC Delegation in its' entirety. Here goes!  

September 29, 2022

MECP Sediment and Fish monitoring Results

Good evening RAC and TAG members. The report I am about to comment on is dated September 1, 2022 and describes monitoring results from two years ago done by the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch (EMRB) of the MECP. It is titled “Sediment and forage fish monitoring results from September 2020 in Canagagigue Creek”.

Over the past 32 years I have read literally many hundreds of so called “technical” reports from Uniroyal Chemical, Conestoga Rovers, Morrison & Beatty, RMOW, Lanxess, GHD, MOE/MECP etc. I am confident in saying that this report is NOT the absolute worst of the bunch. Various legitimate scientists, unaffiliated with Elmira, Ontario's biggest polluter, have referred to some of these reports as junk science and psuedo science. I prefer to generally think of them as quasi legal documents being presented to mostly appreciative “fellow travellers” by friendly defence lawyers. Hence they are often more subjective than objective which kind of does pervert science if you think about it.

The MECP i.e. Ontario Ministry of Environment appear to be somewhat urgently selling two narratives in this report. The first narrative is what I call the real estate theorem. That would be the well known “Location, Location, Location” theorem. They are suggesting that most or all contaminant concentrations are highest at the Uniroyal/Lanxess site and nearby while decreasing as sampling occurs further downstream all the way to the Grand River. This narrative appeals to Lanxess because it lowers their cleanup costs in the Creek as they focus solely on their site and at most a few hundred metres downstream in a five mile long creek. It also appeals to busy citizens, uninformed or otherwise, who find it intuitively logical that just as in groundwater, the highest concentrations are nearest the source and the contaminant plume diminishes with distance from the dumping source. We will get back to this.

The second narrative of the Ministry of Environment really surprised me. Since my personal discovery of the Stroh Drain in 2014 running for approximately 125 metres parallel and only thirty feet away from the Lanxess property line, all friendly parties to Chemtura/Lanxess have done their best to ignore it. Absolute refusals to test soils around the 450 metre waterway to the Canagagigue Creek as well as three to four only sediment sample locations from the bottom of the Stroh Drain over the course of this 450 metre long waterway diverting groundwater from Uniroyal/Lanxess onto the Stroh and Martin properties has been blatant behaviour. Hence my surprise that the MECP have jumped in where angels fear to tread. They have categorically and repeatedly stated that the Stroh Drain is NOT a source of contamination to the Creek. Well now!

I'm going back now to the MECP's narrative about contaminant concentrations being a function of Location, Location, Location. The simplest explanation as to why this is wrong is that their own data, Figures and Tables contradict that story! Yes there are instances in sediments where this does appear to be so. Unfortunately there are just as many or more where contaminant concentrations in sediment are HIGHER downstream than either at the Lanxess site or the next closest downstream sampling location.

I was initially reluctant to give any credence to the MECP's apparent belief that fish swimming in the Creek could somehow be indicators of where the contaminants are highest. A biologist mentioned in a following paragraph suggested that for certain species, minimal travel could be possible. Also the MECP clearly believe it to be so based upon their comparison of fish tissue contaminant residues with location in the Creek. Unfortunately the only way their bar graphs support this is when they are not consistent in comparing tissue contaminants upstream and downstream in the SAME SPECIES! In other words contaminant results for example of common shiners increase with distance downstream but by putting creek chub or bluntnose minnows into the sampling mix at the Lanxess site and just below the Sewage Treatment Plant, the bar graphs appear to show higher concentrations upstream. This is visually misleading. I am not quoting specific Figures and Tables here due to a lack of time allotted to me. Feel free to read and see it for yourselves.

There are other factors at work here regarding any contaminant pattern in the Creek and the MECP know perfectly well what they are. These other factors are well known and understood by biologists and other scientists. Distance can be a factor but it clearly is NOT either the biggest or only factor. Particle size distribution as in sediment fines also determines TOC or Total Organic Carbon. In other words locations with more clay and silt versus sand and coarse sand will generally have higher TOCS. Similarly these higher TOC values also correspond with higher organic chemical contamination in these sediments. The MECP in this report (pg. 6) blessed us with all of ten lines of text explaining TOC and somehow they failed to mention its' significance to contaminant concentrations being of greater importance than distance from the site.

The second narrative of the MECP regarding the Stroh Drain is also problematic. The MECP are clearly backing Lanxess's fear and refusal to honestly sample the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB). Indeed technically speaking the Stroh Drain is Not the “source” of anything. It is a partially man made pathway and drain however. It is also NOT an “agricultural” drain. Yes the Stroh property further north grows crops as well as to the east but the man made drain which joins a natural creek, sometimes

referred to as Martin's Creek, is well treed at the north end and does not run through tilled fields on either property. It is also partially diverted into the Martin's swimming pond and perhaps the MECP and Lanxess fear liability issues. The minimal sediment sampling in the Drain has revealed DDD and dioxins/furans in excess of formal criteria. Dioxins/furans far in excess of formal sediment criteria. Apparently minimal sediment sampling at a much shallower depth than where GHD found 24.4 ppt dioxin/furans, combined with wishful thinking and poor scientific methodology has informed the MECP's opinion on the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm.

I have also had a University level biologist advise me that there are several issues with the methodology in this report. It includes inappropriate bar graphs versus point graphs, over interpreting of the data, opportunistic sampling and inconsistencies in comparing contaminant concentrations to location while using different species of fish simultaneously. There are many other problems including misstated road names, phantom creek chub being missing in the text listing species but then appearing in graphs, references to upstream and downstream locations in the Stroh Drain when in fact the MECP only sampled in two downstream locations both beside the Martin pond and likely not more than 75-100 feet apart and both very close to the Canagagigue Creek.

In hindsight this report is likely on a par with CRA and GHD past poor reports. I have seen some good reports from the MECP specifically from Jaimie Connelly, Bob Hillier and Cynthia Doughty regarding groundwater issues. This MECP report appears to be unsigned which I understand.

Alan Marshall CPAC & EH-Team member