WOOLWICH JUST CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES

 

CPAC wanted a meeting with Woolwich Council to discuss the failure of RAC & TAG over the last eight years. In fact RAC has been beyond useless the entire time whereas TAG has not. The first fifteen months of TAG's tenure (Sept.2015-Dec. 2016) TAG performed reasonably well despite their Elmira inexperience and lack of knowledge. Dr. Richard Jackson was their Chair and he had a wealth of experience both north and south of the border. He quickly took the measure of the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conestoga Rovers and Chemtura. Overall he found their handling of the Elmira cleanup to be shoddy and amateurish (my words). His words were and are both in the TAG Minutes between Sept. 2015 and December 2016 as well as in the Elmira Advocate Blog, usually the morning after a public TAG meeting. Some of those Minutes are still on-line, others possibly not. I have many printed out and frankly his criticisms and words towards those running the Elmira cleanup were often harsher than mine. After about a year he realized that TAG members simply didn't have the necessary fortitude to take next steps (Environmental Commissioner, media campaign etc.) and he handed in his resignation as Chair. It may or may not be speculation about any further reasons or pressures causing his resignation.

I have looked at and listened to RAC and TAG public meetings for the last eight years. Some of the topics have been worthwhile, others not. TAG in particular do not permit verbal Delegations much less any comments or questions from the public. That is both disgraceful and idiotic if the purpose is to learn about the contamination and or to educate and inform the public. Quite frankly despite individual knowledgeable persons on TAG, by far the most knowledgeable members of the public have been kept at arms length for eight years much to the shame of the Woolwich Township liars who orchestrated the removal of CPAC in 2015 along with Sandy Shantz and Mark Bauman's disgraceful leadership.

In speaking to Woolwich Council about RAC & TAG uselessness I would focus on four areas of gross failure. These are the UACTS (Upper Aquifer), the Municipal Aquifers (drinking water aquifers) 2028 failure, the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm and how blatantly Lanxess lied to TAG in order to avoid proper investigation of this major off-site route of flowing liquid contaminants and lastly the self-serving, beyond hopeless, psuedo science and error riddled Risk Assessment of the Canagagigue Creek. Dr. Jackson in 2016 accurately predicted the results of any such Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment done by Lanxess, CRA/GHD and the Ont. Min. Of Environment. .

This new Woolwich Council , just like past councils have been indoctrinated by a conspiracy of self-serving politicians both municipal, regional and provincial who have never wanted to admit the difficulties of properly restoring the Canagagigue Creek which flows into the Grand River nor fully restoring the Elmira Aquifers to drinking water standards and then keeping them there. This has all been music to the ears of the local, corporate polluters including Uniroyal Chemical and successors. It has proven to be much easier to lie to the public than to pull cleanup dollars either from the dirty polluter or from government coffers.

      RAC & TAG WERE MANUFACTURED BY WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP TO  SUPPORT THOSE GOVERNMENT & INDUSTRY LIES

"WHY WOULD ANYONE TRUST THIS GOVERNMENT TO FIX A DISASTER OF THEIR OWN MAKING?"

 That quote in the title above was a quote in today's Waterloo Region Record by provincial Opposition Leader Marit Stiles in reference to the Greenbelt scandal and Doug Ford's Conservative Party. Now of course from a partisan standpoint I might point out Mayor Shantz's political preference (Conservative) however truth be told the provincial Liberals were also no slouches when it came to scandals (remember the gas plant scandal?)

So right now the Citizens Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) continue to wait for a firm date to sit down apparently not so much with Woolwich Council as we had requested but more with the people they hide behind. That would include Tiffany Svensson (TAG Chair), Dave Brenneman (CAO), plus inevitably the mayor. Only two councillors, Cadeau and Schwindt are named to be present. Geez if the mayor and friends really want to "handle" CPAC why don't they hire Ramin Ansari of Lanxess Canada to attend and represent Woolwich Township. He may as well as he's been in charge of the pretend cleanup for years anyways.

It won't be a public meeting. Dave Brenneman and even Sandy aren't that stupid. It also won't be any kind of open and fair meeting. Again they aren't that stupid. While I do not remotely trust Woolwich Township to fix the mess of RAC and TAG, which Sandy and former councillor Mark Bauman initiated, I do hope that whatever councillors are present have an open mind. Which I guess is why at the moment only two (Cadeau & Schwindt) are scheduled to attend.

Woolwich Township have a long and despicable history with the Uniroyal Chemical/ Elmira Water Crisis file. Maybe the new blood on Council will see the light but to date not so. I'm no longer even counting on this meeting ever happening which is exactly what Sandy and Dave prefer.

 

ARE THERE ANY LIMITS TO THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT CORRUPTION?

 I really doubt that there are. Back around 2016 they sent a knowingly false letter to residents living on farms along the downstream Canagagigue Creek. They claimed that the toxic contaminant levels were decreasing when they weren't based on the latest information. Woolwich Township asked them to install warning signs along the Creek to the effect not to eat any fish that were caught. The MOE/MECP refused.  TAG voted in favour of requesting the MOE/MECP to rewrite the letter they sent to residents this time indicating that toxins such as DDT and dioxins/furans were still present at concerning levels. Again the MOE/MECP refused.

This same Ontario Ministry has stood back and allowed the polluter and their consultants to constantly minimize the extent of downstream contamination via numerous means. These include shovel samples versus core samplers being used to collect sediments in the bottom of the Creek as well as the convenient and self-serving use of high Method Detection Limits in order to increase Non-Detects of Lindane and DDT compounds. 

Finally the MOE/MECP themselves check for concentrations of Persistent Organic Pollutants (dioxins/DDT/PCBs etc.) in fish tisues from parts of the fish least likely to have the highest concentrations (fillets vs. fatty areas & the liver). Just speculating but do any senior MECP personnel have homes or cottages way out of their financial means? Are any senior MECP personnel able to financially send their children to world class, prestigious universities? Lastly are either the Liberal or Conservative party receiving large sums of donations to their political cause from Lanxess Canada ?

All these are questions that need to be asked and answered based upon the MECP's decades long behaviour towards Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess Canada in Elmira, Ontario.

CPAC MEETING WITH SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS (& ASSORTED OTHERS) THE PERFECT METAPHOR FOR THE NON-CLEANUP OF ELMIRA

 Five weeks and counting. As of right now I and CPAC do not have a firm time and date for our get together. Now I have been told by CPAC Chair Dr. Dan Holt that it will likely be either October 10 or 11 either date which I can make. If indeed that is correct then it only took seven weeks to get a two hour sitdown with them. Also as to date I have not received a formal answer to my initial August 19/23 e-mail to the whole Council regarding the gross cutbacks in Upper Aquifer (UACTS) pumping and treating, it seems clear that the likely earliest (if at all) that will happen is also either October 10 or 11. 

Now to be clear efforts were made to answer my concerns that the pump & treat system for the most highly contaminated area on the former Uniroyal site had been quietly (without serious debate/discussion) reduced and minimized over a period of years. Both councillor Nathan Cadeau followed by councillor Erik Schwindt gave it the old college try. Unfortunately their personal knowledge is basically nil hence they relied on the inaccurate and biased advice of Tiffany Svensson and likely either David Brenneman or even possibly Ramin Ansari of Lanxess. 

So that folks is the state of so called public consultation right now in Elmira in regards to the Elmira "cleanup". Second and third hand inaccurate if not intentionally dishonest answers being given to easy, straightforward but very important questions  Why again am I willing to subject myself to yet even more bullsh%t and professional liars? Oh right because if there is any hope for improvement of the cleanup and a real change putting the public interest first, then it will only come when citizens push back hard.

Keep in mind my opinion of what goes on at Woolwich Council has changed over the years. It isn't necessarily a pack of like minded liars, hypocrites and Uniroyal/Lanxess fellow travellors on Council.  Two or three key persons; for example the mayor and CAO plus perhaps one more can rule the roost on this file. They simply need to wield the levers of power ruthlessly combined with carrot and stick discipline in addition to consistent, bald faced lying.  How many new councillors really signed on for that kind of four year work environment? 

STILL WAITING: FINAL DATE FOR CPAC/COUNCIL MEETING GETTING CLOSER?

 Well it sounds as if we are down to two possible early evening meetings. When it is this difficult to simply schedule a meeting then I must say that my optimism wanes that any real discussion or progress will be made. In other words why would I even remotely think that Woolwich Council as a whole sincerely want a meeting of the minds? If they did they would already have fixed what they fuc*$# up eight years ago. Lest we forget but at the time councillor Patrick Merlihan referred to the public consultation plan of Sandy and Mark as "cringeworthy" exactly due to the preponderance of bureaucrats and politicians versus of citizens.

There is overwhelming evidence of the damage and failures that have flowed from Sandy and Mark's actions eight years ago. These are public interest failures and they will most likely continue with or without CPAC's attendance at a so called review of the Terms of Reference of RAC and TAG. If CPAC were speaking to some group in authority who did not have a long history of cooperation and capitulation to the demands of the dirty polluter, then I would have some hope of improvement. 

Seven years ago under the Chairmanship of Dr. Richard Jackson, TAG discussed whether a technical advisory committee was beneficial or not. They considered that a group focusing on public policy might do better as the MOE/MECP did not respond to technical cases being presented for their action.                    (TAG Minutes October 13, 2016) page 6

 

  

POLICING, JUSTICE SYSTEM & POLITICAL OVERLAP

 Exactly how much overlap is there? Way too much if there's any at all. Whatever happened to dispassionate justice when penalties can be increased because of circumstances not directly related to the severity of the crime? Three local heinous crimes come to mind. One an immigrant who fled the country after stabbing and killing his ex-girlfriend something like 47 times. His motivations appear to be jealousy as well as a third world attitude towards women as being chattels of men. The other crime was the recent engineering graduate from U. of Waterloo who clearly also had a bad attitude regarding gender discussions and or interpretations of gender. He slashed I believe a female Prof and two students, one male and one female. Possibly his foreign background may or may not have been a contributing factor in his violent response to discussions of either sexuality or gender that he deemed offensive. Third and last we learn in today's newspaper that four teenagers thought it would be funny to drop a heavy, steel railroad spike from a bridge over the Grand River onto a 51 year old man fishing in a kayak below. The man's shinbone was broken although the spike just missed his head and likely would have been fatal if it had hit his head either by brain damage or drowning after he fell out of his kayak.

Finally a fourth local crime right here in Elmira. Late night partying, lots of outdoor noise as well as racing of cars not only up and down a residential street but also up and down Church St. west. Oh and drinking also involved by these young people. What offends me the most is the repetitive nature of these late night parties when the adults are off for the weekend camping and the kid is home and invites his idiot friends over.  Their misbehaviour also includes doing doughnuts and more in the gravel parking lot beside the Living Waters retail store. That particular idiocy has been caught on camera and yet where are our local cops? Oh right they aren't here in Elmira anymore, thank you very much Regional Council. They were called by a neighbour earlier in the summer and apparently showed up the next day to talk to the homeowners. Other neighbours including myself have collected the kids garbage strewn around neighbours' houses and dumped it on the kids porch which he sure as hell cleaned up before the adults got home. The late night, loud parties continue. Are our police peace keepers or are they waiting for a neighbour to over react to these nasty, sleep reducing provocations at which point the cops will charge the neighbour for breaking some stupid kids nose before he or his buddies kill someone with their drinking and driving?

Apparently terrorism enhanced charges occur with identifiable minorities as victims. Does that mean women only? Muslims only? Senior citizens of both genders? Our authorities to date are going after the U. of Waterloo slasher but not even laying charges yet on the kids here in Elmira at least until after they've injured or killed somebody. Wouldn't a tad of prevention be more suitable to citizens paying for police protection?  

FURTHER INDICATIONS OF JUNK & PSUEDO SCIENCE FROM LANXESS & GHD

 In economics there's a saying ..."All other things being equal...". I expect that in pure science subjects there are even stronger sayings which imply that if you are testing a theory that you try to minimize the number of variables so that any changes can be attributed properly to the one factor or item that you are trying to examine. 

I suggest that economics is something like hydrogeology in that it is both an art as well as a science. That said today I'm going to be discussing fish tissue contamination with toxic chemicals. The toxic chemicals include mercury, PCBs, dioxins/furans and DDT compounds. All of these are bioaccumulative hence once ingested they move up the food chain (forage fish) to mink, raccoons, coyotes, hawks, osprey, herons etc. 

Therefore in a scientific manner a so called professional examining fish tissues for chemical contamination should do one fish species at a time, at the same location, using the same tissues (eg. liver/lean tissue/fatty tissue etc.), perhaps even at the same time each season for  one to be able to confidently suggest that toxin concentrations are rising or falling over the years.  

Also while wild fish can not likely literally have the exact same fish tested year after year in a wild habitat, at the very least fish of a similar age and size should be used consistently. This is because older and bigger (& fatter) fish tend to accumulate these particular toxins in their fatty tissues. Therefore again one should reduce the number of variables as much as possible when allegedly comparing fish accumulations of toxins over time. 

Therefore I have to ask what the hell GHD are doing with their forage fish toxin testing by mixing and matching fish species throughout. Bluntnose minnows, creek chub, common shiners, Blacknose Dace and Fathead minnows are all thrown into the mix in their 2020 Forage Fish testing. If there somehow is little or no metabolic difference in their rates of accumulation of toxins then readers of the report need to be explicitly informed and are not. 

There is also one other concern for me and that is location. Presumably each fish is caught in the specific location claimed whether upstream, downstream or even on the Uniroyal/Lanxess property. The problem of course is that fish are not immobile. Maybe these forage fish are ALL known to hang out their entire lives close to home (say a couple of hundred metres one way or the other???). Again if that is so perhaps readers should be so informed and not that I don't trust the lying buggers but a technical citation or reference would also be nice.

I see and smell way too many opportunities for gamesmanship for dishonest groups to do their self-serving thing. 

BOTH COMMUNICATIONS & JUNK SCIENCE CLARIFICATIONS

 The communications clarification between Woolwich Township and CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) is the simplest. It turns out that the Woolwich employee in charge of setting up the meeting is on vacation. Neither she nor anyone else advised the Chair of CPAC about that impending absence ahead of time leaving the CPAC Chair wondering why she was ghosting him.

Way back in the 1990s the Region of Waterloo's consultants, CH2MHILL, advised that during the DNAPL investigations that Conestoga Rovers (CRA), on behalf of Uniroyal Chemical were taking soil samples from inappropriate locations while they were allegedly searching for DNAPL (Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquids) in the subsurface.  As DNAPL have densities greater than 1 they tend to slowly sink through soil pore spaces  and as well through water saturated soils. Hence CRA should have been looking for DNAPLS on top of dense, clay and silt aquitards rather than in the middle of highly porous aquifers.

Now the chickens come home to roost with the lack of strong and serious debate about two more favourite tricks of dishonest, dirty polluters. These occurred both during some of the Canagagigue Creek soil and sediment investigations as well as during fish tissue sampling also looking for dioxins, DDT, mercury, PCBs and more. The first was courtesy of CRA/GHD and the second courtesy of the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MECP). Nice when the regulator itself is so firmly in bed with the polluter. 

Core sampling of the bottom of a creek or river is the way to take sediment samples. The core sampler is a metal tube which is pushed downwards through the sediments on the bottom of the waterway. Now of course all GHD have to do is go out and look for parts of the Creek that are "armoured" as in they have a stony bottom versus softer sediments. Then GHD whine that the core samplers won't penetrate the "armour" so they have to use shovels instead. Then of course the fine sediments flow off the shovel as the shovel is lifted up through the water column. These fine sediments are where the majority of the toxic chemicals are bonded to rather than to the stones and rocks.

Another bit of gamesmanship is for the MECP to take fish tissue samples from the least likely areas of the fish to accumulate toxins. That would be lean dorsal fillets versus from fatty areas of the fish. Even internal organs such as the liver would greatly enhance the concentration readings of DDT, dioxins, PCBs, mercury etc. With Tissue Residue Guidelines (TRG) having a hard number, just like the sediment sampling gamesmanship, here the MECP can further assist their corporate clients against both citizens and wildlife trying to survive in and around the Creek.

How many more lies, deceptions and manipulations that we don't know about have been used to minimize the numerical extent of pollution in the Canagagigue Creek as well as the Elmira Aquifers ?

O.K. I LEFT SOMETHING OUT YESTERDAY!

 I mentioned here yesterday that at least two items needed to be discussed and clarified at the CPAC/Woolwich Council meeting. They are the Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatments System (UACTS) and secondly the gross failure to achieve drinking water standards in the Elmira Aquifers by 2028. That failure, first identified as early as June 2012 by CPAC and endorsed by Woolwich Council, has since been admitted to by all parties, particularly the guilty ones.   

The third item that needs discussion is the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm. That has been ignored and minimized by the guilty parties, since my discovery of it in May 2014, to the complete shame of Chemtura, Lanxess and the MECP.  Since that date both dioxins and I believe DDD have been found in the sediments of the Drain when Lanxess/GHD bravely (?) decided to lift just the corner of the lid and take a little peek. There is a fourth matter which should also be raised at that meeting.  That of course is the Canagagigue Creek so called "investigations". Just more junk science and manipulation of the facts and the data, again minimizing the extent of the massive contamination of the Creek with dioxins, furans, DDT compounds, mercury , PCBs and PAHs.

Woolwich Township (Rae Ann Bauman) have gone silent. She is not returning Dr. Dan Holt's phone messages which is just bizarre.

IS SCHEDULING A MEETING BETWEEN WOOLWICH COUNCIL & CPAC THE EQUIVALENT OF HERDING CATS?

It sort of seems that way. Now of course part of the problem is exacerbated by Rogers ongoing failures with their Internet and other computer  failures beyond my knowledge or understanding. Then there are the human frailties of CPAC members seemingly too busy with careers and or families to promptly respond to e-mails or phone calls. Finally there is also apparently a problem at the Woolwich Township end with the same thing as their rep has received multiple phone calls and messages from CPAC's Chair Dr. Dan Holt without feeling the need to respond in a timely fashion. There is also the problem of Woolwich Township seemingly unable to understand that a full time, day job does not mean that a CPAC member can attend from either 3:30 pm. to 5:30 pm. nor from 4 pm. to 6 pm. 

I must believe that some good can come from this meeting or I'd have walked by now. The optics and odours are not good. That said I intentionally pushed a few buttons with both councillor Nathan Cadeau and councillor Eric Schwindt. Yes I had thrown in the towel and given up on Nathan until I realized that councillor Schwindt was essentially responding and behaving in the same way and maybe it wasn;t dishonesty, or an agenda of not putting the public interest first. Maybe it was honest confusion and misunderstanding of the facts by those two councillors. The guilty parties responsible for the lack of cleanup to date have been whispering in their ears for the last ten months. I include CAO Dave Brenneman in that group and certainly mayor Shantz although I expect most understand her lack of understanding of the hydrogeological and environmental conditions on and off the Uniroyal/Lanxess site.

There are at least two issues that must be discussed in any review of RAC and TAG. The one is that which I have been trying to do for the last month namely the Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System (UACTS) huge pumping reductions and accompanying lack of debate and discussion for many years. The second has to be of course the failure as now recognized and admitted by all to achieve drinking water standards in the Elmira Aquifers by 2028. Public promises were made to CPAC in November 2012 that have not remotely been kept and RAC and TAG have done little or nothing to push Chemtura/Lanxess into compliance with their own promises of greatly increased Municipal Aquifer pumping & treating. Shame on them.

CPAC ARE PLAYING IT STRAIGHT TRYING TO ARRANGE A TWO HOUR GET TOGETHER WITH WOOLWICH COUNCIL

 Did I mention that I don't like Doodle Polls? Where the heck did that name come from? There is a lot regarding the makeup of the meeting that is crappy including some of the attendees from  Woolwich Township. Way too many from the dark side but also some O.K. ones I hope. We had asked for evening meetings to accommodate the CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) members who work full time. So far we've got no later than 5:30 or 6 pm. as the end time for a two hour meeting. I don't find that terribly accommodating thank you very much Woolwich. 

It seems to me that the dark side including Ramin, MECP (Jason & Lubna), Tiffany, Sandy, David B. have had their way with the new councillors. Having attended in person the most recent public RAC meeting last Thursday it was  beyond disgraceful with only TAG member Sebastian speaking truth to authority. He seriously questioned the premise that the Risk Assessment (HHERA) claims namely that all downstream toxic risks are acceptable. First of all sampling has been biased as in locational sampling biases with the three very convenient roads and bridges downstream getting 95% of all the sampling (soils and sediments). Secondly both the 2017 and 2020 Soil and Sediment Investigations of the Canagagigue Creek were a combination of amateur hour errors (lots of typos & worse) combined with extremely conveniently high Method Detection Limits (MDL) which hide a huge variety of criteria exceedances for Lindane and DDT compounds when the MDL exceeds the criteria, whether soil or sediment. 

1) More than four weeks later and no one from Woolwich Township have been able to provide me with any indication whatsoever that there has been serious debate or discussion at TAG regarding the major reductions in Upper Aquifer pumping and treating.    

2) There are unacceptable risks in the downstream Canagagigue Creek to the benthic community, fish, predators and human beings nearby. TAG need to dig in their heels on this matter and not simply beg Lanxess for a one or two "hotspot" handout.

3) Much more needs to be done to at least get our drinking water aquifers restored long before 2050 or 2060, the new dates being suggested.

A LITTLE MORE QUALITY BULL FROM LANXESS & FELLOW TRAVELLORS AT LAST THURSDAY'S RAC MEETING

 Lanxess may voluntarily do some hot spot removal in the Canagagigue Creek. Oh wow what a non surprise. I've been forecasting for the last two years that Lanxess would eventually make a big deal about being persuaded to do at least a little cleanup in one or two downstream alleged "hotspots". This would get Susan the praise she requires plus would make Lanxess look a little less like cold hearted, lying pieces of garbage. Hence a win-win.

Speaking of voluntary we were told by the Ministry of Environment that the entire study and potential tiny remediation by Lanxess is "voluntary". Go figure. Caveat emptor. Lanxess bought a known grossly contaminated site (albeit with private & public reassurances) and we citizens have been told for decades that "Polluter Pays". Now how exactly do our governments square that circle? Ahh yes THEY LIED TO US! For each and every prohibition and sanction on polluters our governments have made sure that they have a half dozen loopholes. Afterall our governments want votes (& money) from both citizens and corporate polluters and the only way to do that is to LIE LIE LIE !

Sebastian was the only RAC attendee who spoke from the heart and from his brain. Everyone else spoke from their wallet and from career aspirations. Sebastian pressed about so called "acceptable risks". He also determined that the responsible party to the pollution was not obliged to clean it up. Or at least that's what he was told. Very nice if you're a dirty polluter.

There was mention of the Review of the Terms of Reference for RAC & TAG. Generally speaking what a joke. The guilty parties have spent nearly a year lying to the new councillors about how much progress they've made and minimizing the failures in groundwater, soils , sediments and even in toxic chemicals in the fish in the Creek.. Both Sandy Shantz and Nathan Cadeau have publicly stated that there will be no restrictions on CPAC's discussions (if they go forward) with Woolwich Council. We will see.

HAVE I HAD AN EPIPHANY OR IS IT JUST GAS ?

 The epiphany can be laid at the feet of councillor Eric Schwindt.  Now this is going to be awkward to say diplomatically but I will try. I over estimated the level of knowledge and under estimated the misunderstanding hydrogeologically of Woolwich councillors. That they are likely surrounded by bad advice is however obvious. This bad advice comes from both within and without Woolwich Township I believe.

I pushed councillor Nathan Cadeau very hard as he seemed up to it and wanted to chat/debate until he as I put it, ran for cover. His so called running for cover was to have me ask TAG about discussion/debate that allegedly occurred there regarding major shallow aquifer pumping reductions. I have zero confidence in the TAG Chair's nuetrality and alleged concern for the public interest. Then I pushed Eric hard (by e-mail) trying to get a confirmation or denial about the lack of public debate/discussion  around the shallow aquifer pumping reductions. Finally he sent me yesterday a horrible and ridiculous response that apparently came from Tiffany Svensson, TAG Chair. Now despite my lack of confidence in her, I have to seriously wonder how well he worded his question to her AND I have to realize that if he indeed thought that her answer was even remotely sensible and relevant then he clearly knows a whole lot less about the Uniroyal/Lanxess site than I could have imagined.

Long story short: Eventually I can understand someone else having a whole lot less knowledge and understanding than I about Elmira/Uniroyal Chemical hydrogeology. What I can not abide is the intentional obtuseness and feigned ignorance of those in charge of the cleanup namely Lanxess and the Ont. Min. of Environment. They are scumbags of the worst sort. 

LIARS LIE: IT"S WHAT THEY DO - LAST NIGHT"S RAC MEETING WAS BOTH A LIARS' & A CHEERLEADERS PARADISE

 Such arrogance. Such incredible bullsh*t. Elected leaders combined with unelected professional liars spreading the message of love and good intentions magically transforming green and blue natural environments into industrial wastelands and then back again. All it takes is trust and confidence and good manners and you too can experience the transformation without remediation or expense or any nasty blame, civil suits or especially criminal charges to sully the always in the public interest love that corporations espouse for the rest of us.

See Ramin: I too can spin tales of bullsh*t just like you. 

Sebastian spoke truth to power and as usual was ignored other than by me. I slowly but firmly applauded and Sandy to her credit is slowly learning. Instead of over reacting and throwing a hissy fit she merely began to ask me to desist which I had already done. I made my point. I'm on the fence with Eric Schwindt waiting for a promised e-mail from him. I advised him not to ask Lanxess or the MECP about the shallow aquifer pumping failures but instead to ask Sebastian or Linda. Nope not he. He advised last evening that he asked Tiffany the question prior to the meeting. For God's sake Eric. Am I to believe that you are that naive or stupid? She's getting $30,000 per year as a bribe...oops maybe I mean as an honorarium from Woolwich Twn.  Who do you think she's backing? Sebastian, CPAC and I or the status quo of professional liars ?                    

Ramin/Lanxess claim that their Risk Assessment concludes that there are no unacceptable risks downstream from their site in the Canagagigue Creek. Well of course that's what it says. They paid good money for that as well as for the experts and consultants to back up their lies and bulls*it. Dr. Richard Jackson publicly advised CPAC in 2016 that no good would come from a Risk Assessment done under the auspices of Chemtura, CRA or the Ontario Min. of Environment. Dr. Jackson, then Chair of TAG, also stated that a Risk Assessment done by Hatfield Consultants he would have confidence in, otherwise not so much and he has been proven correct.

The downstream Canagagigue Creek is full of toxic chemicals ABOVE any and all criteria such as dioxins/furans, DDT, DDD, DDE, mercury, PCBs, Lindane and much more.  Ramin and others  ignore that and claim that the risks are acceptable. In a nutshell dirty polluters can sicken and kill other lifeforms as well as human beings provided they have the time, the funds and the political support to study, research and write complicated, logarithmic, mathematical constructs full of assumptions and theories called Risk Assessments. All bought and paid for and to hell with the truth.

IS TIME RUNNING OUT OR IS THE WHOLE "REVIEW" MERE WINDOW DRESSING?

 Rae Ann Bauman on behalf of Sandy Shantz and Dave Brenneman has put a please & thank you on the end of today as the deadline for responding to Woolwich's frankly pathetic attempt to invite CPAC to an "open" discussion regarding the future (if any) of RAC & TAG. It is just about as far from an "open" discussion as is possible. I might also add for Rae Ann's benefit that we clearly do not have common goals with Woolwich Township, past or present. I, of course, wish that we did but the Township for thirty-four years have been far too amenable to every cheap and ineffective remediation scheme put forward by Uniroyal Chemical's client driven (bought & paid for) consultants. Woolwich have enabled both the polluter, their successors and the Ontario Ministry of Environment to lie, deceive and manipulate local citizens who stepped up to learn, to analyze, to critique and to point out better directions to go.

If Sandy and fellow travellors sincerely want to talk and discuss future remediation steps they have to learn 1) to respect their citizens 2) to stop lying to them constantly and hiding it behind flowery language and heavy duty bullsh*t. That David and Nathan is the playground of professional liars who have thrived in Elmira and Woolwich since November 1989.  

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP NOT LOOKING GOOD

 CPAC individually have been sent invitations to attend some sort of what appears to be a half hearted review of RAC and TAG. Various comments suggest that it might be as little and as frivolous as a review only of the Terms of Reference of RAC and TAG. To me this is the equivalent of a review of the Terms of Reference that George Bush had for the invasion of  Iraq looking for non-existent "weapons of mass destruction". In a real democracy, Georgy boy would have spent time in jail for that intentional bull sold to the American public. Another example would be Doug Ford proudly announcing a review of the Terms of Reference for the recent Greenbelt scandal in Ontario. The Greenbelt affair was morally wrong, ethically wrong and legally wrong. Do throw out the baby with the bathwater on that one as well.

Can one really blame the specific members of TAG say for the failures of RAC and TAG or were they intentionally handed an onion and told to make it smell better? If those at the top; mayor, CAO, MECP are neither honest with the public nor especially interested in the public interest as it often conflicts with their own interests, then what hope do committees of Council have? Basically in the case of RAC and TAG, there is none. Some easily persuaded and hopelessly inexperienced Woolwich councillors have had professional arm twisters working on them for a almost a year now.     

An honest and unbiased council would see to it that CPAC members were given every opportunity to honestly and straightforwardly present data and facts to them that others have not and will not. They would not literally throw out a single hour on one specific day only for nine CPAC members to debate RAC and TAG's efficacy, competence and knowledge over the last eight years with Council members who have not attended more than a small handful of meetings where they are completely, so far, out of their depth. 

This Council are on the verge of cementing Woolwich's future reputation as the pinnacle of environmental greenwashing. Congrats Sandy, you will be remembered. 

EXTREME CORRUPTION? - IS THERE ALREADY A SECRET DEAL BETWEEN WOOLWICH COUNCIL & LANXESS/MECP?

Well the title above was my initial plan for today's Blog posting. I was going to give more details on the July 2023 Progress Report failures. The extreme lack of pumping in multiple aquifers etc. Thirteen years ago CPAC and the public were promised a TRIPLING of off-site pumping & treating in order to achieve the 2028 cleanup of the Elmira drinking water Aquifers (MU/ML) by 2028. At that time pumping of all off-site wells averaged around 53 litres per second. The month of July this summer has averaged a mere 25 litres per second or NOT triple but less than HALF.

Now after receiving an e-mail this morning perhaps the title of today's Blog is O.K. It merely needs the corruption expanded to include what I'm now wondering. While I've always concluded that UPAC/CPAC/ RAC & TAG were designed to act as buffers between Woolwich Township and the cleanup, things are changing. Is it possible that the corruption now includes Woolwich Township bypassing their own self-serving, tame committees? Is it possible that the Township are still partners with Lanxess and the MECP while stickhandling around their own committee?   Oh my God. The depths that people will go to to help themselves at the expense of the public interest. There may be good people on Woolwich Council but I think they are in the minority.

AS FULLY EXPECTED, SHALLOW SOILS ARE STILL HEAVILY CONTAMINATED ON THE UNIROYAL/LANXESS SITE

 The first excuse was oh no there has been a full, serious and public debate at TAG in regards to the large decreases in shallow groundwater pumping in the Upper Aquifer on the south-west corner of the Lanxess site. To date and we are heading towards the four week mark since I advised Woolwich Council, there has been exactly zero evidence either publicly produced by Lanxess, MECP, GHD, Woolwich Council or discovered by my own looking in TAG Minutes.

A potential second excuse may emerge blithely suggesting that well after 25 years of pump and treat the south-west corner has been flushed and many of the contaminants removed via the treatment system.  This of course contradicts what citizens were told back in the 1990s to the effect that permanent on-site pump & treat was required forever in order to hydraulically contain the contaminants and prevent them from migrating off-site dissolved in groundwater. 

Here are a few numbers indicating current groundwater contaminant levels on-site from the July 2023 Progress Report:

Table A.4   Upper Aquifer 

UA500I 

Chlorobenzene 780 ppb.

Toluene             908  "

m/p xylenes      111   "

Aniline           1030   "

Carboxin        1570    "

Another location (UA560I) has the following concentrations of dissolved contaminants:

Chlorobenzene    1110   ppb.

Toluene               4270     "

 m/p xylenes         175     "

Aniline               1560      "

Carboxin            1579      "

2-MBT                904       "

These are but a few of the dissolved contaminants still on site. There are probably still undissolved (free phase) DNAPL and LNAPL on site as well. Any reductions in shallow aquifer pumping are self-serving, counter productive and plainly disgusting. Doing it surrepticiuosly, under the radar, is just that much worse. 

TAG STARTED WITH FIFTEEN MONTHS OF EXCELLENT LEADERSHIP FROM DR. RICHARD JACKSON

 Wow the things that Dr. Jackson said publicly about the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP), Chemtura/Lanxess and CRA/GHD. Is it possible that he left rather than have to spend years defending himself from SLAPP suits? (SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Now keep in mind that that unworthy and horrible thought just crossed my mind. I had earlier considered that pressure was put upon him by Mayor Shantz or Woolwich CAO Brenneman.

Most certainly Dr. Jackson did not pull his punches regarding his analysis of the entire cleanup and the pathetic efforts put into it. I have published here back in 2016 a number of Dr. Jackson's quotes and I have also sent copies of them to five of the six Woolwich councillors last February. Some of these various harsh quotes can still be found on-line (Woolwich Township website) in the Minutes of TAG meetings through late 2015 and throughout 2016. I must also add that TAG were supportive of Dr. Jackson's statements and proclamations about Chemtura, MOE, CRA  at that time. I wonder what has happened since as they certainly have backed off of confrontation with those guilty parties running the alleged Elmira cleanup. 

 

BACK ON TRACK WITH COUNCIL COMMUNICATION?

 As per Wednesday's post I've had a response from Councillor Schwindt. After some further thought he's no longer sure about which aquifers have been discussed at TAG and he is attempting to determine that. Good! That is progress. By now all the honest councillors must be realizing that holy cow maybe I'm right that there have been major reductions in shallow aquifer, on-site pumping and they've been accomplished surrepticiously or at least without proper discussion and debate. Of course it will be another whole can of worms explaining to them what the ramifications are and even then there will be the less honest councillors whispering in their ears that none of it is important anyways. 

What I have learned over the decades is that the stupid and uninformed just love to advise the stupider and less informed than themselves. In other words the uninformed want company. They were misinformed likely by senior staff and they want newer less experienced councillors to follow in their footsteps. Most of this poor advice comes quietly and privately. Hence informed people such as myself go into a meeting not knowing who has been told what and by whom. I end up arguing with someone who is totally without a clue but they have ben told privately beforehand certain "truths" that are complete bullsh*t. Hence we are arguing at cross purposes because I have no idea what they believe and where it came from.

In other words, anonymous bad advice is an art form for some of these professional dead weights. Also so is misdirecting councillors in order to keep certain friends of the Township on side.  After all if Lanxess for example are offering to donate towards say a splashpad in Breslau why tick them off here in Elmira over contaminated groundwater? Over time it becomes the tail wagging the dog and it just gets easier and easier especially with new councillors. 

   

HAVE THE SO & SO's FIGURED OUT YET WHY I'M DIRECTLY E-MAILING WOOLWICH COUNCILLORS INSTEAD OF GOING TO TAG?

 If they don't then they are intentionally obtuse. Their two committees of council are intended to limit public access, public scrutiny and public consultation. Lanxess and the Ministry of Environment have been living in polluter pig heaven for the last eight years. Now interestingly as I'll explain shortly, at the moment I'm feeling fonder of TAG than I have for at least a few years. Based upon an old set of Minutes I read this morning I've been  reminded that despite TAG's complete lack of nastiness, hostility or aggression; there are some honest and smart people on board.  Unfortunately due to peer pressure, societal pressure, employment and career concerns etc.; they are pushovers for government agencies and multinational corporations who don't give a crap for anyone but themselves and if that means destroying reputations, careers, livelihoods,  happiness then that's all in a day's work for them.   

Two days from now marks the three week anniversary of my sending my August 19, 2023 Blog post  to Woolwich Council versus RAC or TAG. Three weeks and very little has been resolved. Nathan Cadeau agreed (in writing) that the on-site Upper Aquifer (i.e. shallow aquifer) pumping has been seriously reduced over the last two decades. He then wimped out of proving his claim that there had been full discussion/debate about this at RAC/TAG or CPAC. Then councillor Eric Schwindt stepped up or so I thought.  He also claimed that he had listened to debate at TAG regarding pumping rates and reductions.  I very gently and carefully explained to Eric in writing that likely what he heard was TAG member Linda Dickson giving her usual TAG meeting discussion to the members in which she pointed out pumping failures and reductions mostly in the deeper Municipal Aquifers, both on and off the Lanxess property. I had expected Eric to get back to me with either a "Geez you're right, she was discussing deeper aquifers" or at worst a response such as "Geez now I'm not so sure which aquifers she was discussing." Instead since last Saturday, absolutely nothing from Eric or Woolwich Council. Very, very sad if running and hiding is the best that they've got.

I may later today, after some fun, send Council another e-mail. Yes it may very well be a tad critical. Maybe I should discuss conflicts of interest with them. Tons of that to go around. Here's an example. It's not a conflict of interest for councillors to go searching for TAG Minutes looking for specific discussions of greatly reduced UPPER AQUIFER pumping. It is also not a conflict of interest for Dave Brenneman, Ramin Ansari, MECP, GHD, Tiffany Svensson etc. to do so. The obvious reason is that their interests will be damaged if they do not find any such serious discussions.

Now here's where it gets weird. It's also a conflict of interest for me to go looking through the TAG Minutes for those discussions/debates. I've publicly stated my position that I do not believe that this huge issue has been seriously discussed and debated by RAC/TAG. However since when have I, CPAC or citizens in general been given any assistance from those at Woolwich Township?  Exactly. I learned decades ago that if you want any serious research done you have to do it yourself even if it were to prove your own position incorrect. It is a conflict of interest but I'm looking anyways. Nothing so far but got lots more to do. Life never has been fair especially regarding Uniroyal Chemical in Elmira.   

MUDDY WATERS DO NOT IMPROVE THE POTENTIAL FOR GREATER PARTICIPATION IN THE SO CALLED RAC/TAG REVIEW

 CPAC and myself do have an e-mail from each of two Woolwich councillors advising of a review of the Terms of Reference of RAC and TAG. Bluntly put a review solely of the Terms of Reference of RAC and TAG is grossly inadequate. Sandy Shantz. Mark Bauman, Chemtura and the Ministry of Environment fashioned RAC and TAG to be a toothless, polite and respectful greenwashing tool. On that basis it is my opinion that TAG in particular are an unbridled success. RAC are just a plain bunch of cheerleaders along for the ride.

Now don't get me wrong  TAG individually have some strong talent involved. Strong talent who will only be tolerated as long as they don't over reach. Over reach is defined as being critical and non-supportive of Lanxess, GHD, MECP, Woolwich Township etc. After all, first and foremost this is a club of right thinkers. Everybody has to be on board and supportive of everybody else otherwise there would be chaos and uncertainty for the public. Presenting a united front is far more important than actually remediating anything.

Members have come and gone constantly. Bill Barr, Joe Kelly, Pat McLean, Katharina Richter, Dustin Martin  to name a few. New folks with little to no knowledge of the history of the site are brought on regularly. It does help to keep things muddy.

Further mud for me surrounds who is being invited to the party. How many citizens know that one TAG member is neither a Canadian citizen nor a resident of Woolwich Township? So much for local, citizen input. Will the review be stacked as usual, heavily in favour of Lanxess and their interests? Who will be the moderator or Chair? Dear God not Sandy! When and where will this review be? Will the removal/discontinuance of RAC/TAG be up for discussion or was that statement by councillor Nathan Cadeau inaccurate? Most importantly will the issue of decades of reduced shallow aquifer (i.e. Upper Aquifer) groundwater pumping be at least somewhat settled prior to the review? This is, pardon the pun. a watershed issue. If as certainly appears obvious right now, TAG have utterly failed to see and find the gross reductions in on-site shallow aquifer pumping to hydraulically reduce the quantity of heavily contaminated groundwater discharging to the Canagagigue Creek; then clearly their efficacy is beyond salvage.  Until or unless the public are clearly and honestly advised that somehow TAG were addressing this issue and doing it publicly, then they are fit only for the trash heap. Even without their failures on that front they have enough other failures including not advising and rallying the public to stand up for the cleanup of the Canagagigue Creek as Lanxess have publicly stated that their vaunted Risk Assessment says that it isn't necessary. Absolutely contemptible and if TAG don't say so publicly then they too are contemptible.

REMOVE RAC & TAG (DISCONTINUANCE), UACTS STILL IN LIMBO

 

Well things are certainly ongoing.. After councillor Nathan Cadeau's full blown retreat, Woolwich Council have stepped up. Possibly. I sent an e-mail addressed to Woolwich Council on Saturday morning. Saturday afternoon Councillor Eric Schindt responded. His e-mail advised me that Council are soliciting people to discuss new Terms of Reference for RAC and TAG. No comment from him regarding Nathan's claim that Discontinuance was or was not still on the table. That is strike one. Then Eric advised that "pumping rates" have been discussed at the TAG meetings he has attended this year. O.K. that is not a strike presuming that Eric simply doesn't know that there are a ton of different "pumping rates" involved. There are on-site pumping rates. There are off-site pumping rates. There are Municipal Aquifer pumping rates. There are Upper Aquifer (shallow aquifer) pumping rates and on and on. For new councillors not to know this is not a big deal. For them not to get informed very damn soon is. 

So at the moment both the issue of RAC & TAG Discontinuance being on the table or not has not been confirmed by the whole Council. Secondly the issue of the Upper Aquifer Pumping & Treatment System (UACTS) huge reductions in pumping ongoing for years is also not settled. Nathan agreed there were large reductions but claimed RAC & TAG public discussion of the issue. In my response to Eric Schwindt later on Saturday afternoon I explained  to him the differences in the pumping rates being discussed at TAG  (deeper Municipal Aquifer etc.) versus the shallow aquifer on Lanxess's south-west corner which is the huge and significant issue that I have raised. 

So are Council playing Whack-A-Mole with me or is this legitimate? I will play it as legitimate until or unless the smell gets way too strong. I am also keeping both the Woolwich Observer and CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Comm.) in the loop. 

WOOLWICH COUNCIL NOT LOOKING GOOD

 Can I call Nathan's apparent position change a trip to the dark side? Or has he always been one of those persons who aligns himself not with what's right but with those with the power and influence? One thing for certain is that he is a smooth operator who however takes risks. He was hiding behind someone else's opinions and speaking to me as if they were his own. Once I had him pinned down with agreeing that there has been significant pumping reductions in the shallow aquifer on the Uniroyal/Lanxess site then he was in trouble. Undoubtedly he was told by whomever he was fronting that these reductions had all been approved properly by RAC/TAG or a previous iteration (CPAC). As soon as I suggested that he produce the Minutes of those alleged public meetings indicating full and vigorous discussion of such an incredibly significant change to the cleanup, Nathan and his shadow panicked.

I gave Nathan a second chance to start looking for the documentation that he claimed existed. Nope he wasn't interested. He bailed with his tail between his legs like a whipped dog. So here's the rub. I already know that two of our current council are a problem namely the mayor and newbie Kayla Grant. Her public comments regarding the consultants and their nonsense including non-existent clay caps over the former Bolender Landfill, quite frankly were embarrassingly complimentary and solicitous. She appeared more eager to please the powers to be than to do the right thing about yet more trucks opening up shop in downtown Elmira. With Nathan's recent behaviour, albeit he is a very smooth bullsh*t artist, then the citizens are in trouble. I still have hope for Bonnie B., Evan B.and Eric S. although I know there will be instances where possibly their pro business positions may conflict somewhat with mine. That is O.K. as long as they hold strong to their principles and ethics.    

Allegedly, as per Nathan, Council's "Review" of RAC/TAG has the option of Discontinuation on the table. Was that a blatant lie or the truth? To date although Woolwich Council were cc'd on all correspondence between Nathan and I, nobody has seen fit to confirm or deny that. That is worrisome and suggests to me that it is NOT on the table but they don't want to undermine Nathan's now greatly reduced credibility. Secondly Council now know that my claims of greatly reduced on-site shallow aquifer pumping are accurate. Do they not feel that a confirmation or denial as to whether the issue was ever brought to RAC/TAG for public discussion is important? It is way too quiet at Council right now and that is not a good sign.   

NATHAN"S BLUFF WAS CALLED - AND HE'S CUT & RUN

 Hmm I wonder if this means that the tutorial I promised Woolwich Council is still on or not. The tutorial was to get them at least a little bit up to speed on some of the ongoing cleanup going on at the Lanxess site. Then after that a sit down with CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) to discuss the throwing out of RAC and TAG would make more sense. Afterall if it is 100% accurate that RAC & TAG have completely either missed the gutting of the shallow aquifer pump & treat or worse yet knew about it and only discussed it privately (in camera etc.) then that alone would be grounds to get rid of them. Frankly the grounds have been there for a very long time. What I found peculiar was that nobody on Woolwich Council felt the need to confirm Nathan's claim that discontinuance of RAC and TAG was on the table. That was my first tip that something was very wrong.

Then of course was Nathan's remarkable transformation from council newbie into a hydrogeologist. Somebody was answering for him yet he felt no compunction to man up and admit that he was fronting for :  David?  Tiffany?  Ramin? or whomever.

Thirdly despite every opportunity to cut and run when I lost patience with his bull Nathan hung in there trying to convince me that nothing was wrong with the most highly contaminated area on the Uniroyal/Lanxess site having it's hydraulic containment reduced. He claimed in writing that I was correct about the greatly reduced pumping rates but rationalized it by saying that the reductions had been fully discussed in public forum through the RAC and TAG committees or a previous iteration. I believed then and believe now that that is bullsh*t. 

So of course I called Nathan's bluff on that. All RAC and TAG public meetings are recorded. There is a Support Person from Woolwich Staff who writes up the Minutes of each meeting. For about seven years it was Lisa Schaefer but has now changed. There is also a Chair of TAG (Tiffany Svensson) paid about $30,000 /year for part time work. Maybe she as TAG Chair could find those alleged discussions. Instead of any of that, Nathan appears to have cut and run. He's refusing to state that he or anybody will look for the alleged public discussions. He's making excuses. Or maybe those discussions never took place in public if at all. You can guess what I think.