WILL THE ONT. MIN. OF ENVIRONMENT GET A PASS FOR THEIR CORRUPTION & COLLUSION? MEANWHILE TRAC ARE WINDOW DRESSING TO CONTINUE TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC

 

Transparency - Hmm seems odd that after all these years Woolwich/TRAC can't even figure out to keep their damn doors open to allow the public in to a Public Meeting i.e. TRAC last Thursday ( See Fri. April 26/24 posting here). It is also pathetic that they are now putting out Agendas & Minutes between 100 and 600 pages in length. For last week's TRAC meeting they had three Revised Agendas each one longer than the first AND they screwed up the page numbers royally regarding at the minimum "Correspondence".  Also their page numbers are confusing as there is both a number at the top of each page that comes up on one's computer screen as well as one on the bottom of each page and they do NOT match. 

This I know because I checked carefully this morning. I was looking for my e-mail sent to TAG /TRAC last March as it was mentioned at the very end of last Thursday's TRAC meeting. Lo and behold it took me over half an hour to find it in two of the three Revised Agendas namely #2 and #3 but no where near where the Table of Contents for the Agenda stated. Revision #1 said Correspondence was on page 101. Instead it was on page 95 or 195 depending on which number scheme you use. Revision #2 simply did not have Correspondence or an Agenda included. Revision #3 stated that Correspondence was on page #82 when in fact it was on page 176 or 178 depending on which number scheme you use. 

Then we have the TRAC meeting itself. Oh my God. Member after member indicated as they introduced themselves that they had "no expertise", "no scientific background", "no specialist knowledge", "no real expertise regarding Elmira's issues" etc. Combined with them were the usual dead weight such as the GRCA. Now just to be fair there are a couple of hydrogeologists. One is blatantly biased  (pro Lanxess) and the other more subtle about it. One totally non-technical citizen slept sitting somewhat only upright at her computer station for about a third of the meeting. A couple of times her head snapped back upright as she succumbed to the scintillating discussion underway.   

In my opinion the so called plume analytics by Joe Ricker of WSP consultants is primarily Smoke & Mirrors.  He has an excellent/interesting voice and he can handle an audience very well. He did make a couple of serious admissions though including that his plume analysis regarding changing AREA, changing CONCENTRATIONS and changing MASS REMOVAL is totally based upon concentrations and data supplied to him by GHD (formerly CRA). In a nutshell he bragged about how wonderful the unsuccessful aquifer remediation has been and stated that he'd never seen an aquifer respond so well and remove so much contaminant mass in his decades (4?) of experience. I too can brag about being a world class target shooter never having been defeated by world class competition. Of course I've never competed anywhere near that level hence my alleged perfect, undefeated results as per my bragging and puffery. Based upon both the aquifer results and the raw data sources he used grossly diminishes the results and his conclusions for me.

Also at one point he had to have Ramin  (Lanxess) clarify for him as to when and which pumping well (W4) may have been shut down thus affecting the contaminant plume characteristics. Furthermore he appeared to be all about these plume characteristics and always subscribing the positive outcomes (i.e. concentration decreases ) to the world class efforts of Uniroyal-Lanxess. Nothing good was ever caused by natural attenuation or simple lack of ongoing grotesque toxic dumping that ended fifty years ago. Nothing bad (concentration increases) was also ever the result of faulty decisions, short cuts or squeezing nickels for shareholders' benefit versus the public interest.  Quite frankly I'm pretty darn certain that my knowledge and recollection of the history of remediation and pump & treat versus citizen suggested improvements such as Source Removal (numerous methods) including ISCO (In Situ Chemical Oxidation) far exceeds his. For this site!!! Undoubtedly Mr. Ricker is an expert in his narrow field but having him lecture mostly environmentally inexperienced TRAC members is easy pickings. Likely why I and a couple of other honest and informed local residents will never be on that committee or any other appointed by a dishonest Woolwich Township.

Possibly more on this topic tomorrow.