June 13, 2024
TRAC MEETING
Kind of an inauspicious start when the
presenters apparently can not pronounce Lanxess. It is neither Lanex
nor Lanexs. Similarly NDMA or N-Nitrosodimethylamine is NOT MDMA nor
MDNA. Finally sub-surface remediation is known as in situ not in- su
just as remediation of contaminants brought to the ground surface for
treatment are known as ex-situ not ex-su.. Minor points yes but they
reflect poorly upon TRAC's alleged professionalism.
It appears if one of the latest Lanxess
recruits has made a serious error. Hadley claimed twice in the TRAC
video that one can drink the discharge water going into the Creek.
Well I suppose one can drink arsenic, cyanide, bleach or whatever one
wants but really she should have warned unsuspecting people about the
consequences. I believe her drinking suggestion was based upon
reduced NDMA concentrations in the discharge water. Yes they are
reduced but NOT to drinking water standards. Somewhere I noticed ND
(.2) ppb. and somewhere else (likely in the monthly Progress Report)
a discharge to the Creek criteria for NDMA of ND (.14) ppb. Even
this lower number is approximately fifteen times higher than the
drinking water standard of 9 ppt or .009 ppb. Then of course there
are all the other chemicals in the soup that are above the drinking
water standard. What for me is the most horrifying is that no one
corrected her. Nathan and Hadley for example are newbies. Allegedly Susan, Eric H., Sandy, Tiffany etc. are not. YET NO ONE
CORRECTED OR CLARIFIED HER. That is incredible beyond belief. Are
they all grossly ignorant or simply too well trained to contradict
Lanxess???
TRAC Chair Nathan asked Nadia and Sadie
of Conestoga College if in their research they had come across
“asymptotic behaviour” by NDMA i.e. NDMA never achieving a
concentration of zero over time. I believe that Nathan was trying to
dispel or disprove my written comments that Joe Ricker's (WSP) theory
of “asymptotic behaviour” was junk science or worse. On the other
hand maybe Nathan is secretly either an agent of CPAC or an eco
warrior and he was hoping that the ladies would respond in the
negative as they did.
The discussion focusing on a pilot test
of ISCO (In Situ Chemical Oxidation) totally failed to hit the most
significant point. Not only was it a failure under the direction of
Conestoga Rovers and Chemtura but according to the first TAG Chair,
Dr. Richard Jackson, the failure was due to a completely inept and
amateurish effort by those two. Several former TAG members were
present back then including Sebastian, Linda and Susan but apparently
their memories or courage failed them. I have previously sent the
references (TAG Minutes & date) to both Woolwich Council and TAG
but if you are unable to access them promptly then rest assured I
will so provide for a minimum administrative fee solely to ensure
appreciation for my efforts. After all you Woolwich Township have a
history of dumping on and scapegoating well informed citizens who
work for free, literally for years in the public interest.
I am curious as to whether the admitted
loss of hydraulic containment to the Creek is solely a function of
normally higher ground and surface water levels in the spring time.
Could there not also be an element of continued reduction in shallow
aquifer pumping along Uniroyal/Lanxess's south-west corner also
contributing to this loss of containment?
So has Hadley stuck her foot in it
again? Personally I kind of like her based upon her honesty about
being a newbie and being on a steep learning curve. Regardless I was
a little non-plussed to hear her advise TRAC that the 2028 deadline
actually was neither a deadline nor a timeline. Hadley rather
strongly referred to it as a Target !!! My recollection both
verbally and in writing (June 2000- Kal Hannif MOE) was that 2028 was
a mandated deadline and that we at CPAC were so advised many times of
that as was TAG from 2015 onwards. Now if that mandated deadline is
not a mandated deadline anymore than that's O.K. This is Woolwich
Township and clearly black is white, white is black and any and all
Ministry Orders etc. are mere suggestions totally amenable to
unilateral amendment, revocation and reinterpretation upon the whim
of his/her Majesty the Crown.
There was discussion by Hadley and Eric
Hodgins regarding “magic bullets” i.e. a remediation technology
that could inexpensively do a masterful job of destroying
contaminants and cleaning up aquifers etc. Hadley suggested that
Lanxess would likely be the first to ever hear about any magic
bullets. Eric agreed that such a magic bullet was not likely to show
up. Unfortunately Hadley's five minutes of experience with Lanxess
really doesn't give her all that much credibility to date.
Ryan Prosser clarified a lot of
misconceptions regarding obtaining acceptable clams for bio
monitoring at the Lanxess site i.e. the Canagagigue Creek. As had
previously been discussed in detail there are a number of native clam
species with adequate populations to use here in Waterloo Region
versus going back and getting the clams (eliptio complanata) from
Balsam Lake which is outside of our watershed. Jason Rice of the MECP
blathered on about a new source of clams and Ryan Prosser again set
him straight.
For some reason there was discussion
about prematurely cleaning part of the Creek. Prematurely, really
more than seventy years after the company started killing it? Hadley,
Linda and Susan were involved with that discussion. Susan wanted the
Risk Assessment finished first.
Susan frankly shocked me which at this
point in time I thought that I was well past. In discussing the
proposed new MECP Order with Eric Hodgins (former RMOW) Susan stated
that the new Order should NOT first be presented to the public.
Instead she wants the public educated first. Educated presumably in
the ways of sweetness, lightness, obfuscation, deceit and
manipulation so that they will not oppose the plans of the
discredited non-saviours of the Elmira Aquifers. She and Eric also
discussed six allegedly relevant questions regarding cleanup that
some idjit may have proposed. Susan did however make one very
interesting comment that I do tend to agree with. She asked why a
volunteer group should have to be figuring out where the cleanup
needs to be going. She referred to that as being too much and unfair.
As she stated both Lanxess and the MECP have the funding and the
expertise. Unstated may have been that those two have failed and
maybe the only purpose of RAC, TAG and TRAC is alleged “citizen”
involvement and hence some responsibility for the final failure.
Dr. Klees the faculty adviser to the
Conestoga College students suggested that the Ontario Drinking Water
Standards (ODWS) might be old and out of date. Jason Rice, Eric H.,
and Hadley all joined in. She repeated her silliness about allegedly
dumping clean drinking water into the Creek. Mayor Sandy Shantz made
a comment similar to Susan's about “We need to educate the public.”
after first saying that the Township needs input from the public. Two
entirely different things.
To my relief Sebastian stepped up and
rather bluntly suggested that TRAC be careful with their upcoming
“Update” to Woolwich Council. He suggested that there were some
fundamental disagreements going on within TRAC. WELL!
There were four pieces of
correspondence to TRAC including my Delegation to Council back in
May about Joe Ricker's "asymptotic behaviour" junk science, self-serving, face saving groundwater pumping failure excuses. There were the usual zero comments, questions or concerns
expressed by TRAC.
Alan Marshall EH Team