IT'S BEST ALL DONE QUIETLY & PRIVATELY

 

Lanxess are talking, discussing and maybe negotiating with the downstream Old Order Mennonites living and working the land along the Canagagigue Creek.  What exactly are they talking about? My suspicion is that want something from this community and are willing to pay an enormous sum for it although they won't weaken their negotiating position prematurely. Potentially cleaning the Creek sediments and creekbank soils along with some floodplain soils could cost a hundred million dollars and take years to accomplish.  Think about it. There is more than five miles of Creek winding it's way downhill towards the Grand River just south of West Montrose. Think about dredging a couple of feet or more of the bottom sediments for that distance. Think about removing large areas of soils above the Creek waterline for that distance. Think about the floodplains themselves and how much contaminated fields there might be.

Or the alternative and totally irrelevant to the biased and phony HHERA (Risk Assessment), perhaps the 22 downstream families might accept say a million dollars per family to sign off on the whole mess. Just call it all an act of God while ignoring all the executives, bureaucrats and politicians who clearly had neither respect nor caring for the men, women and children affected by their self-serving decisions since 1942. Heck if necessary I'm sure some of the guilty parties would cheerfully throw some taxpayers money at these Old Order Mennonite families if they will sign a release indicating that they will never sue for damages.

If many of these families have either young or old members requiring serious health care whether directly, indirectly or not at all from Uniroyal Chemical toxins; they would certainly have an incentive to mitigate their health expenses especially as they generally are not covered by OHIP.  I expect some families would be relieved, others maybe not. There might even be a holdout or two. Regardless Lanxess would not be talking to them out of the goodness of their hearts. Lanxess are a corporation not a charity and it's all about the bottom line and what is best for Lanxess Canada.  

  

NEXT TRAC MEETING PLUS UPDATE ON WOOLWICH TWN. BEHAVIOUR

 

O.K. so the next TRAC meeting has been moved up to Monday December 9/24 at 6 pm. No I do not recommend anyone attend without an extensive background in Elmira politics as well as environmental matters. The reason is because of the volume and extent of bulls**t that will be thrown around at the meeting as if it came straight from above. Which it doesn't . In fact it comes from straight below and gives the devil much amusement. Keep in mind one can attend virtually as even some of the TRAC members who don't live in Elmira or Woolwich like to do to avoid winter car travel.  Don't ever get confused and think that all TRAC members are either locals or for that matter even Canadian citizens. They are not with Susan B. being the most egregious. Finally the in person meeting video seems to appear on the Woolwich Township website about five days after it's completion.

Yesterday's Woolwich Observer carries the ad for this upcoming TRAC meeting. It also states "Delegations must be submitted a minimum of eight (8) days prior to the Technical Remediation Advisory Committee meeting date to be included on the agenda."  That raises a number of issues such as why do the contents of  Delegations have to be submitted in advance at all?  Asking to be on the Agenda with a title of one's submission relevant to TRAC's mandate and the Elmira water issues should be sufficient. Secondly submitting one's Delegation eight days prior when at most the Minutes from the previous meeting as well as the proposed new Agenda do not get released until six or seven days prior is weird. Afterall you may well decide to present as a Delegation only after you see what is already planned to be discussed at TRAC. Lastly of course is the usual failure of TRAC (TAG) members to ask any intelligent or otherwise questions of Delegates of whom they have been advised not to ask questions of at all. 

All of this is typical Woolwich hunker down behaviour. They give lip service to openness and transparency while weeding out disparate voices and opinions, especially those of citizens far more knowledgeable on the subject matter than they or their bought and paid for Qualified Pe****s are. Both Luis and Allan D. are second stringers for GHD which indicates how  little concern Lanxess have for the reduced local opposition and critics ability to be heard in Woolwich and by Woolwich. 

ALWAYS ARROGANT, KNOW IT ALL AND PRETENDING TO BE MORALLY ABOVE THE CITIZENS THEY WORK FOR

 

I think that was what really set me off back in 2015 with Woolwich Township. They (Sandy & Mark) had just lied and manipulated as well as defamed volunteer CPAC members all to gain support from Uniroyal/Chemtura and the Ministry of Environment (MOE/MECP).  They clearly were part of the multi agency (RMOW, GRCA, Woolwich Twn., Ontario-MOE) conspiracy to let Uniroyal/Chemtura off the hook with their relatively inexpensive and ineffective alleged cleanup of our ground and surface waters. Yes the decades of air pollution which likely made many sick and eventually killed others has been improved although it took decades of talk, lies and bulls**t  before real action was taken.

Hence I have seen fit to make my contempt and disrespect for Woolwich Twn. very clear. They do not deserve my respect or for that matter anybody else's. Now of course here is where it gets tricky. Every four years we tend to get a new crop of councillors. Should they be automatically condemned for their audacity to run for political office? Should they be condemned for going into office possibly believing that public service is a noble and honourable profession? Obviously not especially if they are young and naive which they would have to be to believe that hooey. 

So township councils get second and third and fourth chances and eventually you've lived long enough to understand how the system works. New members are quickly indoctrinated into an us versus them attitude. It's a lot like policemen who are trained to view the citizens they are sworn to protect as often dangerous thugs. Yes a very few likely are but the vast majority of citizens just want to mind their own business and get home at the end of the day without incident.   

Woolwich Twn. continues to coddle dangerous polluters and skirt around the law. Just because every second rate politician at all levels (municipal, regional, provincial) and every second rate bureaucrat serving these second rate politicians, long ago decided that the easiest route for them was to go along to get along, doesn't make it right. No one has ever laid out the options, including the do nothing option, clearly for local citizens. No one in authority has ever explained what the environmental effects, much less the human health effects are for constantly permitting Uniroyal and successor corporations to make all the pollution decisions for the rest of us. No one has had the nerve or the honesty to spell out why so many citizens all around us are contracting cancers and suffering and passing on prematurely as a result. 

Our authorities/politicians have long ago sold us out and if they had any brains they would realize that they've also sold out their own friends and families just to get themselves re-elected and remain on the gravy train. Is it status and ego or is it money? Hard to believe that Township councillors (other than the mayor)  would sell out for the small money involved. Maybe some of them are true believers that those with the money and power should make all the decisions. Maybe on the other hand most of them have connections to the big money locally and are confident that they and theirs will be eventually rewarded if they stay the course.      

 

TRAC QUESTION 2 IS THE NEXT ITEM TO LOOK AT

 Luis Almeida and all the rest of the Lanxess/GHD crew as well as TRAC have been avoiding this issue for the last few years despite a number of written comments I've sent in comparing the pumping rates both on and off site since 1998 (Off-site) and since 1992 (On -site). Mr. Almeida's response in this forum is pretty much as weak as anybody else's with a whole lot of gobbledygook mostly ending with an exasperated sort of "Trust us". Well sorry Luis but that ship sailed decades ago.

Luis also claims that "It's also important to note that Lanxess has set target rates are above pumping rates that achieve containment." Yeah that's important if it's true. For literally decades though it's the opposite of what we were told at UPAC and CPAC. It is also the opposite of what GHD WRITE below their pumping results in each and every monthly Progress Report . There they make it plain that they GHD recommend that Lanxess maintain the Target Pumping Rates for both on and off-site pumping wells. 

I mentioned gobbledygook back in the first paragraph. CRA/GHD have been known and been caught! assigning off-site Sentry Wells in the past such as CH44 and CH100 that they knew were screened in both the shallow aquifer as well as in the municipal upper aquifer. This gave artificially high groundwater elevations just off-site allowing Chemtura/Lanxess to claim hydraulic containment when it did not exist. Hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland argued this exactly in a private meeting with Chemtura but ran for cover when CRA objected loudly. Dr. Regier was present as was a number of less honest persons than Dr. Regier and myself. Months later the Environmental Review Tribunal agreed with my assessment on this well being improperly assigned by CRA   as an off-site Sentry Well.

LOTS MORE DECEPTIONS, LIES, TYPOS (Ha!), IN GHD'S RECENT REPORT TO TIFFANY SVENSSON

 

First off this might surprise readers. Tiffany is not dumb. To my knowledge she is a professional hydrogeologist who knows perfectly well when deception attempts are being made. I guess however she does know where her bread is buttered. Did I not recently see that she received $30,000 for her efforts last year as Chair of TAG?  That's pretty damned good for a part time job in my opinion. Think of all the volunteer Woolwich citizens (not Susan B. who is neither a citizen of Woolwich nor Canada) and the literally years that they have spent giving of their time and effort to try to help cleanup the Elmira Aquifers and the Canagagigue Creek.  Other than a couple of individuals (only one of whom is a citizen from here) who have been well rewarded for their service to the Woolwich mayor and Chemtura/Lanxess , all the rest have been given the cold shoulder or much worse.

This latest argument is just Woolwich constantly pushing. They are frustrated because they know that to date they have been unsuccessful in shutting me up or down. Yes only Sebastian of the former 2010-2015 CPAC is on TRAC however that membership has slowly over 9 1/2 years gone from problematic to embarrassing to counter productive. TAG, RAC and TRAC have done zero good for the public and significant bad by simply providing the professional liars... oops make that simply providing the world class instigators of TYPOS,  cover and protection from appropriate public criticism and condemnation. That said I do acknowledge that Sebastian has stepped up and publicly contradicted his TAG and TRAC colleagues on a number of occasions. They knowing that he won't go any further appear willing to let him do so, right up until they don't and then he'll be shown the door. 

The November  14/24  letter to Tiffany from Luis  Almeida has a total of five questions from TRAC to Lanxess/GHD. To date I have given reasonably detailed responses to GHD's responses to Questions 1 (Stroh property and Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB) as well as to GHD's response to Question 4 regarding Effective Solubilities say of chlorobenzene versus Aqueous Solubilities. GHD responses were shoddy and defective similar to other past reports. Meanwhile TRAC's Question 2 is about below Target pumping rates and actually makes me realize that TRAC and Tiffany make actually be paying some attention to my technical critiques as this is one that I've been pounding on for the last couple of years or more. TRAC's Question 3 is about the revised HHERA (Human Health & Ecological Risk Assessment) and TRAC wanting a response from Lanxess/GHD more than a year later. Also TRAC would like an update on the clean up of "hot spots" in the vicinity of residents along the Creek. This wording I find a little odd as historically the "hot spots" referred to three areas conveniently along roads crossing the Creek downstream namely at the New Jerusalem Rd.,  Northfield Dr, and Jigs Hollow Rd. (outside West Montrose)  . Finally Question 5 is TRAC asking for a Well Installation Log which GHD are somewhat claiming is already done.

So do the additional three questions all need my comments? Perhaps one or two do but not all of them. We shall see. 

PROXY WARS

  Proxy wars is an old term which suggests that various wars over the decades (centuries?) were fought between world powers who did not want to actually get involved in a head to head war with each other. Hence proxy wars. Suggested examples are North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine etc. Rather than the U.S. getting into it with China or Russia they support one side in some kind of regional conflict while China or Russia support the other side with weapons and other war material.

Hence to Woolwich Township. CAO Brenneman likely wants to keep his hands clean as does the mayor. In the past I've engaged with Mr. Brenneman and found him to be slippery, sly and deceptive. Not at all interested in straight forward discussion or attempts to actually resolve a disagreement. I have had significant disagreements with Nathan Cadeau and at one time Lisa Schaefer when she was the CPAC and then TAG Support person. I am very pleased to state that at least the last few years of her tenure in that job that we got along very well. I appreciated her above and beyond efforts to answer questions or clarify some issues and I told her that. Now recently out of the blue (it seems to me), the new Support person is on the warpath regarding my usual, normal, strong criticism especially of Lanxess, GHD and the Ministry of Expanded Corporate Pollution (MECP). Yes my writing often has editorial content as well as factual content such as my changing acronyms like MECP or even TRAC.

I attempted a compromise and a softer tone in my first response after the Support person made the frankly idiotic and totally unacceptable demand that I no longer engage in accusations of either incompetence or dishonesty, essentially with everybody. That got me nowhere so back to the blunt approach. How exactly does she think that I am supposed to write that Luis or Alan Deal seem to be at 100% odds with proven facts that everybody has? Mr. Deal misrepresented  the 1% Rule by suggesting out loud and publicly at TRAC that 1% of the Aqueous Solubility (approx. 5,000 parts per billion) was at least a yellow flag that DNAPL could be present. That is bulls**t . It is 1% of the EFFECTIVE SOLUBILITY not of the AQUEOUS SOLUBILITY and the difference could be as dramatic as only 50 or 500 parts per billion of chlorobenzene may very well indicate the presence of free phase DNAPL nearby.

Let me see maybe I could refer to public, blatant, misrepresentation or lies as boo boos. Now of course this would all be moot if Mr. Deal, GHD or Lanxess were willing to admit to their gross errors and publicly rectify them. Hell those twits won't even admit to failing to clean up the Elmura Aquifers for which they have been in total control since day one. Hmm maybe I could refer to their written and spoken disinformation as TYPOS. That's it, typos could be my new code word to replace professional bullsh** artists etc.  Let's see how this goes.

ACCUSATIONS OF INCOMPETENCE OR DISHONESTY TOWARDS LANXESS/GHD/MIN. of ENVIRONMENT NO LONGER PERMITTED BY WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP

 

Well it's come full circle. I've been ordered by the new Woolwich Support person for TRAC not to criticize or disparage those responsible for the failed ground and surface water cleanup in Elmira.  Hence both TRAC and Woolwich Township aren't even hiding the fact any longer that their purpose is to provide cover and protection for Lanxess Canada in order to avoid their legal responsibilities to clean up their toxic mess.

The following was sent to TRAC, Woolwich Council, the media and other stakeholders this morning.

  

November 23, 2024

Stacey: Calling someone a five minute wonder is not an insult but simply a fact. For example Hadley Stamm (Lanxess) is a five minute wonder, as you are. Nathan Cadeau was a five minute wonder. Now he may relatively only be a ten minute wonder. This expression simply makes the obvious point that appointing persons with zero direct experience to an ongoing thirty-five year long problem is more than a little weird and problematic. How do those in charge believe that the appointee will ever have that 35 years of knowledge and history available to them and at their fingertips? Clearly they don't and clearly that is exactly what they want.

Hence please view these words in the light of yourself with zero direct experience dealing with Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess(O.K. 5 min.) as well as CRA/GHD and the MOE/MECP. Are you out of your cotton picking mind telling me that I cannot make “accusations of incompetence or dishonesty toward ...any affiliates or stakeholders of TRAC...” You said this in your Thursday, Nov. 21/24 4:31 pm. E-mail to me. The next day (11 am.) you again stated that “Accusations, disrespectful language ... will not be accepted or circulated.“

News flash Stacey. You (or Woolwich Twn.) are not my censor. Is that the major purpose of the past TAG and current TRAC? Are those municipally appointed bodies simply a protective shield for polluters from the truth and from appropriate criticism? Back in 1998 Uniroyal stormed out of a CPAC meeting because they were strongly criticized over their toxic air emissions harming multiple Duke St. residents. They and the MOE did something similar albeit less dramatic in late 2014 because CPAC were pushing them for answers on the Stroh farm contamination. Sandy got elected in October 2014 and immediately gave Chemtura and the MOE/MECP everything they wanted which included getting rid of me and other excellent citizen volunteers who refused to kiss Chemtura's or the MOE's butts.

Neither you nor Sandy nor Woolwich tell me what to write or how to write my technical criticisms of Lanxess and GHD junk science or lies. If you don't like my strong criticism then instead of shooting the messenger try to honestly address the issue/problem. Woolwich Township has become a cheerleader for junk science, incompetence and polluter dishonesty. Nothing has been accomplished in cleaning the downstream Canagagigue Creek fifty plus years AFTER the worst on-site Uniroyal discharges ended.

Our groundwater is still polluted well above drinking standards in all aquifers with Uniroyal chemicals. Despite this the Woolwich folks in charge pretend that more respectful dialogue will magically solve everything. Eventually there will be a resolution which Lanxess and the MECP will like but it will come as it always has at the expense of the public interest and of the environment.

By now you may have correctly interpreted my lack of respect for Woolwich documents being used as a stick in order for Woolwich to get their way, no matter how perverted. Also I might add that your statements that “...it is critical that all correspondence adheres to the Township's Procedural By-Law and Customer Service Standards. This ensures productive dialogue and a respectful environment for all parties...” Really Stacey that is pure rubbish and at least one of us knows it. There has never been a respectful environment at UPAC, CPAC, TAG or TRAC. That is guaranteed by the ongoing lies told to both committee members and the public by Lanxess, GHD and the MECP. Try reading Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach's critique of TAG that I referenced in a recent communication.

I will not be aligning my e-mails to meet either your or Woolwich Township bogus standards that reward liars and punish truth tellers. Take your threats of my critical documents not being “accepted or circulated “ and shove them where the expression suggests.

Alan Marshall

WOOLWICH ARE LOSING THEIR MINDS

 

Well I suppose I have to admit that my writings on the failures and lies by those in charge of the Elmira cleanup are for a purpose. I want a written record of all the technical incompetence if not technical negligence that has occurred .  That said, as you can well imagine, how does one do that without using words such as incompetent, shoddy, negligent, gild the lily, falsehoods etc. Well Woolwich have sent me a letter flatly stating that my Tuesday and Thursday e-mails to TRAC and Woolwich Council will not be accepted as official correspondence for TRAC.  Further they stated "Future correspondence that includes language such as accusations of incompetence or dishonesty directed toward Council members, Township staff, TRAC committee members...will not be tolerated."

Well darn, other than calling TRAC members "deferential" I'm doubtful that I've said a whole lot more about them. Even the word "deferential" is a quote from one of their own members (Sebastian) describing their behaviour.  

Well it seems that if I write critiques of the cleanup plans with the words "excellent, insightful, brilliant, world class" then all is good. Otherwise not so much. Oh and they also suggested that in reference to the Township's Procedural By-Laws and Customer Service Standards that "These policies clearly state that workplace violence, harassment, and any form of verbal or physical abuse will not be tolerated." 

Hmm I'm wondering if they are hinting that Uniroyal/Lanxess, GHD and the MECP  all work for Woolwich Township? Otherwise as those groups are 99% of my target then what the heck does a made in Woolwich Township document (Procedural By-Law) have to do with anything? Elected Council members do need thick skins as they are up front at Council meetings and sometimes take the brunt of public outrage on the occasional issue. That's just a fact of political life. I agree that the bread and butter Township staff really shouldn't be expected to take any crap from the public. TRAC members are appointed volunteers and should be prepared to defend their positions and decisions from time to time. That said I don't believe that the public can ask them questions at public meetings as they did for decades prior to Ms. Shantz becoming Mayor.

LANXESS/GHD LYING TO TRAC & THE PUBLIC MUST STOP!

the following will be sent immediately to TRAC, Woolwich Council, Regional Council, maybe the media and certainly to the honest, remaining environmental activists in Elmira 

On pages 5 and 6 in Luis Almeida's letter of November 14/24 to Tiffany Svensson (TRAC), Luis gilds the lily yet again via distraction and deflection. Tiffany starts the TRAC Question 4 as follows:  "Has Lanxess determined the effective solubilities of NDMA and chlorobenzene in the upper and lower municipal aquifer?" Luis made no attempt to answer that question.  Tiffany in Question 4 followed with "Addressing the concern of using the "aqueous" solubility value of chlorobenzene in the September 12, 2024 presentation to support the assessment that there is no NAPLs present off site...".  Here Tiffany quite frankly states that GHD (Alan Deal) incorrectly used the Aqueous Solubility value instead of the much lower Effective Solubility value. Luis's inaccurate, dishonest and misleading answer was "GHD did not use the 1% rule or effective aqueous solubilities to infer or repute the presence of DNAPL."

Well in fact GHD (Alan Deal) did exactly that. He did it and as I was at that meeting I not only wrote down what he said but later confirmed his words from the You Tube video of the TRAC meeting.  I also checked Mr. Deal's overhead slides (pg. 16) which is where the misrepresentation started.  Then I posted on my Blog (Elmira Advocate) on September 13, 14 and 16, 2024 condemning Alan Deal's words and falsehoods . My posts are still on line and as well Woolwich Council and TRAC were made aware of Alan Deal's comments in which he used the 1% rule (of thumb) relative to AQUEOUS SOLUBILTY instead of  relative to Effective Solubilities which can literally be ten, a hundred or a thousand times lower than Aqueous Solubilities which refer to dissolving for example chlorobenzene in a container of clean, pure water versus  the trashy groundwater under Uniroyal/Lanxess that can easily have a hundred different contaminants mixed in it. Effective Solubility is real world solubilities not laboratory solubilities.

Before I quote Alan Deal's dumb remarks at the September TRAC meeting let me give you a touch of DNAPL history.  Yours truly can take credit for introducing the 1% Solubility rule to UPAC (Uniroyal Public Advisory Committee) way, way back in the day i.e. early 90s. Brian Beatty was the groundwater consultant (Morrison & Beatty) for Uniroyal at the time. Mr. Beatty introduced the 10% Solubility rule to UPAC and had the nerve and brass ba**s to quote a well known hydrogeologist by the name of Stan Feenstra.  As this was before the Internet was well established (with me at least and maybe everybody) I went up to my alma mater and dug into the Arts Library where I found Mr. Feenstra's original document. Mr. Beatty had quoted him out of context in which he was referring to the past  10% Solubility Rule being replaced by the now current 1% Solubility Rule. I talked to Mr. Feenstra on the phone and he agreed to send me a letter criticizing the misrepresentation by Mr. Beatty.  I gave this letter to all parties and David Ash of Uniroyal ended up "consolidating" Mr. Beatty whom we thankfully never saw again.  Many more from CRA/GHD need to follow Mr. Beatty's walk.

Here are Alan Deal's exact words from the September 12/24 TRAC meeting :

"IF YOU DETECT CHLOROBENZENE AT A CONCENTRATION THAT'S AT OR GREATER THAN 1% OF ITS' AQUEOUS SOLUBILITY, SO SOMETHING AROUND 5,000 MICROGRAMS PER LITRE, THEN THAT COULD  INDICATE THAT THERE IS DNAPL UPGRADIENT OF THAT MONITORING WELL."

"SO IT'S  MAYBE NOT A RED FLAG BUT A YELLOW FLAG THAT... THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE DOING YOUR EVALUATION YOU DO HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND."

I have been aware of the difference between Aqueous and Effective Solubilities for decades. At one point years ago Jaimie Connolly, MOE/MECP hydrogeologist, actually did a calculation for CPAC comparing the vast numerical differences between Effective Solubility in Uniroyal's groundwater versus the various chemical contaminants Aqueous (Lab) Solubilities.  Obviously GHD, Lanxess and the MECP in their decades old quest to coverup DNAPL presence both on and off site have ignored Effective Solubilities at every opportunity and continue to do so. That local politicians allow, permit and support this misconduct/corruption speaks to their integrity.

Alan Marshall  (still too blunt, accurate and honest to sit at the table with the rest of the deferential sheep )  

STILL POKING & PRODDING THE BEAR WHILE LEAVING A PAPER TRAIL FOR FUTURE CORRUPTION PROSECUTION

 

Are there any guarantees of future prosecution? I would say no there aren't.  The thing is politics which runs everything including our justice system one way or the other (just look at the U.S. Supreme Court with Donald Trump's idiot appointments) .  Don't fret we too in Canada are stupid enough to let politicians make judicial appointments and we wonder why we get occasional idiots behind the bench (think Robert Reilly).  Just to be specific yes I am talking about corruption prosecution in regards to the gross failure of the public interest being first and foremost in the decision making of our municipal, regional and provincial politicians surrounding the non-cleanup of our Elmira/Woolwich ground and surface water in addition to of the downstream Canagagigue Creek. Is it possible that at some point in the future there will be the political will to bring these corruption charges?

The last two days I've been discussing a letter sent to Tiffany Svensson (TRAC) from Luis Almeida (GHD) ostensibly answering five questions that TRAC have. Now as much as I have criticized TRAC for being too deferential and refusing to step up and verbally lay down some rules of engagement such as less lying from Lanxess and friends; I will say this. They are not totally oblivious to some of the issues being swept under the rug. Often times they will express concerns (as Sebastian has) and some times they will follow up. Unfortunately they have never drawn a line in the sand hence Lanxess, MECP and GHD have no respect for them.

Monday's Blog Post here went to TRAC plus some Woolwich Council members. Yesterday's Post went to TRAC, Woolwich Council and Waterloo Region Council. I didn't bother sending anything this time to the K-W Record or to the Woolwich Observer. I expect that today I will be looking at Luis Almeida's response to TRAC's  Question #4 which is about DNAPLS . Whether I continue with the other questions is unlikely as I still have to comment on last week's allegedly public TRAC meeting. 

FURTHER COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS REGARDING LUIS ALMEIDA'S (GHD) SOMEWHAT HOPELSS NOV. 14/24 LETTER TO TIFFANY SVENSSON

 

So called professional consultants (GHD) only write such drivel and nonsense when they are assured that serious and knowledgeable critics are not allowed the opportunity to straightforwardly address their inaccuracies.

Nov. 19/24

FURTHER COMMENTS & OBSERVATIONS REGARDING LUIS ALMEIDA'S SOMEWHAT HOPELESS NOV. 14/24 LETTER TO TIFFANY SVENSSON

In TRAC Question 1, TRAC requested topography information and flow path info for historic waste management units. The first effort by GHD was pathetic whereas the second was mostly non-existent. Let me advise Luis thusly: Good ground surface contour lines, i.e. topographical information is required to confirm/prove flow paths of rainfall, liquid toxic wastes etc. These topographical lines show the flow direction via gravity flow. Your provided map is crap! It fails to show all the east boundary/border topographical lines i.e. from north to south along the property line/border. You have focused on contour lines only at the south end of the site despite leakage and migration from the most northern pit (RPE-1) plus all the rest (RPE-2-5) based on Region of Waterloo and GRCA topographical maps which you have used in your past reports. Secondly some of your contour lines are not identified by elevation and others have soil sampling locations inconveniently placed on top of contour elevation numbers making them illegible. Finally of the contour lines I can read not all match the ones that I used several years ago from your published maps labelled as Region of Waterloo or GRCA sourced.

Luis suggested that there was a ditch or swale on the west side of the pits parallel to the Creek. While I don't dispute that some of the overflow, spillage etc. from the east side pits may well have found it's way into that ditch/swale unfortunately you have not indicated where that miraculous and helpful ditch/ swale starts or stops. Also just because liquid wastes are overflowing from all five east side pits doesn't mean that it all flowed out of the west side of the pits and found your ditch/swale. These five pits were partially in ground and partially above ground by your own maps and figures. Liquid contents overflowed in all directions including onto the Stroh farm. Contour lines indicate that the pits were higher than the Stroh property the length of the property line and liquids would flow eastwards not just westwards. Finally your wonderful ditch/swale did NOT run directly into either GP-1 or GP-2. It ended north of the two gravel pits at the swampy area that already had standing water/liquids in it. From there any flow in the west side ditch/swale spread out and again gravity flowed via ground surface contours south-east through the so called ”Gap” area and onto the Stroh farm where it met other migrating liquids that had flowed almost due south on the Stroh property. The 1983 Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB) was built for two purposes namely to drain the swampy area on both properties and secondly the Berm was to weaken the force of the flooding Canagagigue Creek which had been eroding contaminated soils from a very low lying area slightly further east on the Stroh property where much of the migrating toxic liquid wastes settled.

Luis keeps referring to the Gap area as topographically high. Ridiculous! The name “Gap area” refers to Chemtura/Lanxess intentionally failing to take soil samples in 2015 at the LOW LYING former swampy area immediately north of where the north-west to south-east diagonal ridge of high ground sits. Then when soil samples were actually heaven forbid taken on the Stroh farm at an amazing depth of 15 cm. or 5.9 inches in 2018, the 2015 stupidity (?) of taking soil samples on the entire perimeter of the Uniroyal/Lanxess east side property EXCEPT for the one low lying area that many of us toured, saw and walked on in 2019 was rectified via the addition of SS20 and SS21. Now of course even then Lanxess had to play games by including parts of the high ground at the southern end of SS20 leading to the high ridge of ground. Hence “the GAP” is merely a 2015 sampling gap and failure of Uniroyal/Lanxess that Luis and others have appropriated in an attempt to undermine finding higher concentrations of dioxins and DDT compounds by intentionally sampling the high ground exactly where everybody knows flowing liquids would not have travelled over.

By the way aerial photography actually did expose part of the flow path from the Uniroyal property to the Stroh property . It was both the 1955 and 1968 maps in a March 2012 CRA Report regarding the Gravel Pits that showed an arc if you will of bare ground running through the LOW LYING GAP from Uniroyal over to the Stroh property exactly where the SDDB was later built to join up with Martin Creek and then the Canagagigue Creek. I notice that Luis failed to mention the 1968 aerial map which a generous person would not call an intentional lie. My generosity however failed me after about the 137^th lie from Uniroyal/CRA or wait a minute was it the 371^st lie? This is another advantage of delay. Memories tend to weaken. Good news however Luis did mention a 1955 map which however like the rest he mentioned was not shown.

Luis really is confused. He claims that soil sampling locations S-17 (02) and SS09-15 are within the Gap area. They are not! Also he claims that previously mentioned SS20 is within the Gap area when only the most northern part of that specific area is. Furthermore his Table 1 shows a TEQ (i.e. Total dioxins) criteria of 99 pg/g or parts per trillion (ppt.). Now it turns out that this TEQ criteria is based upon MECP Table 2 criteria whereas most of the time we use MECP Table 8 criteria. I checked the 2017 and 2020 Canagagigue Creek Soil and Sediment reports and indeed Table 8 was used likely due to the samples being taken within 30 m. of surface water. Perhaps Luis would like to amend his criteria for soil samples taken within 30 m. of the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB). When it comes to the soil samples along the Uniroyal eastern property line they all appear to be based upon Table 2 criteria which is likely O.K. for the further north soil samples but not appropriate for soil samples taken just across the property line from the constantly flowing SDDB.

One other small problem for Luis is that he's gotten his soil units wrong. DDT compounds (i.e. DDD & DDE as well) have always been in units of micrograms per gram or parts per million. He's got them in his personal Table 2 as picograms per gram which is parts per trillion. This basically is saying that all the DDT compounds are one million times smaller than they actually are by CRA/GHD earlier reports.

Again Luis somewhat oddly is claiming that the former gravel pit investigation included the Gap area. Well if he persists in believing that the high ground at the south end of SS20 is part of the GAP area (it isn't) then maybe he might also want to claim that Uniroyal Chemical contamination did not leak off-site because Uniroyal secretly bought the Stroh farm fifty years ago. See where I'm going with this? Professional have an answer for everything. Oh and just to upset Luis a tad more the “...surface water drainage area located at 6670 Line #86” is both a surface water drain as well as a groundwater drain. The groundwater is upgradient on the Uniroyal/Lanxess site and is somewhat diverted by the below ground surface SDDB (P.S. It's deeper than it looks and intersects shallow groundwater!)

Luis also talks about an independent Elmira community member who collected soil/sediment samples. That also is in error. There were two Elmira community members of which you know both and of which I am but one. Is Luis taking a shot here at SSA by inferring that he isn't independent or did he not know? Secondly we did not collect soil /sediment samples we collected soil samples properly, logged them, and sent them for analysis. I have seen other GHD reports claiming that our samples were soil/sediment which certainly is no more bizarre than so much of what they claim. I wonder why however they would not simply have asked the question? Ah yes I forget. I'm on mayor Sandy's, Lanxess, MECP naughty list. It really is unconscionable for any commoners without certified brown nosing credentials (i.e. cleared by Sandy, MECP, Lanxess) to offer opinions contrary to those bought and paid for by our world class polluters.

Moving along in increasingly better humour I must also add that of the lowly, miserable and cheap, minimal sediment sampling in the SDDB two hits stand out. DDD was significantly above the Table 8 health criteria and dioxin TEQ was found at a concentration of 24.4 parts per trillion (ppt) with a Table 8 (within 30 m. of surface water) criteria of .85 ppt. That is about 36 times higher than the criteria yet all the Queen's's men and all the Queen's horses couldn't get their crap together and decide that an honest, full investigation was required. Afterall you could still upgrade three roads on the west side of Elmira for a truck bypass while cleaning up the Stroh and Martin contamination on the east side.

You know there are still four more questions ahead of us but as a senior, senior citizen I'm getting ready for my nap. Congratulations to all the dishonest and corrupt parties over the decades who have stalled and delayed so successfully for so long. Some of the original citizen critics such as Esther Thur and Pat Potter are dead and others are suffering the ravages of time. Continue to keep me from speaking on an equal basis with others so far less knowledgable and competent and soon I too will be no longer capable.

Alan Marshall Elmira Environmental Hazards Team plus numerous others still vertical

SAME OLD LIES & COVERUP BY GHD TO HIDE STROH CONTAMINATION

 

The following is an e-mail I recently sent to Stacey Bruce of Woolwich Township. Stacey is the Support person for TRAC. 

Stacey: Thank you for passing along the October 2024 Monthly Progress Report.  Also I appreciate the seven page letter to Tiffany Svensson (TRAC) dated November 14, 2024 and sent by Luis Almeida of GHD. While I have only briefly examined to date TRAC Question 1 and 4,  I can advise you for your own information that Mr. Almeida's answers are woefully inaccurate. 

 His map is very poor as are his comments that the Gap area is topographically high which is nonsensical , inaccurate and likely intentionally disingenuous. It is unfortunate that Sebastian (& Tiffany) continue to reference "the Gap area" as either symbolic or significant to the major issue of massive liquid wastes flowing onto the Stroh property from Uniroyal Chemical's east side ponds (RPE 1-5). The gravity flowing toxic liquid wastes crossed the property line from Uniroyal to the Stroh farm (west to east) for almost the entire length  of the Uniroyal site with the notable exception being the southern end of "the Gap area" whose surface elevation begins to rise as it meets the very large, diagonal, north-west to south-east ridge of high land that is mostly on Uniroyal's property with a very little on the Stroh property. Luis is just having fun by pretending to think that "the Gap area" only consists of the high ground at the southern end of the Gap area. Obviously liquid wastes flow downhill via gravity and it is typical for example of Uniroyal/Chemtura to sample soils on the higher ground and then pompously declare that gosh we didn't find any evidence of migrating liquid wastes here.   

The sampling on the Stroh farm has been minimal, shallow and totally bogus and unacceptable and Lanxess gratefully thanks the MECP for their service to the cause of sham cleanup.

Stacey feel free to send this my early response on to TRAC . 

Thank You Alan Marshall 

There are more issues and inaccuracies  in Mr. Almeida's letter than mentioned above. Ms. Bruce has already indicated that she sent my e-mail on to TAG for what good that will do.  

WELL, WELL, WELL IT ALMOST SEEMS AS IF THE MECP DON"T TRUST LANXESS

Tell me it isn't so. I've just gotten through in a letter to TRAC  describing Lanxess's  appreciation of the MECP's service to the cause of sham cleanups. Now in the MECP's November 8/24 letter to Lanxess I see a tad of coincidence in that the MECP are asking TWO questions in a row about DNAPLS.  I described the first question in last Thursday's post about residual DNAPL admitted to by Lanxess in former, on-site landfill M2.  Today's post is about the second question by the MECP asking Lanxess why contaminant concentrations in CH-75B reacted conversely to each other starting in 2019. Apparently NDMA concentrations started dropping significantly then whereas chlorobenzene concentrations began rising significantly. 

So is the MECP legitimately wondering or are they just advising Lanxess to do a better job in clarifying the non-existence of free phase DNAPLS preferably both on and off-site? To a non bought and paid for fellow travellor  of  Lanxess the answer is relatively obvious. W4 had been both containing and slowly dissolving the free phase DNAPL found 100 feet below ground at OW57-32 almost beside W4. Afterall why do you think the twits put the pumping well (W4) there in the first place but to deal with the non-admitted free phase DNAPL CRA inadvertently found in the first place. 

Concentrations of chlorobenzene dropped significantly after years of pumping so in 2017 Lanxess quit pumping W4. Lo and behold the chlorobenzene then happily migrated under the pumping of well W3R. Along the way it also went past CH-75B where sampled concentrations began rising. No surprise at all. 

COMBATING WOOLWICH CORRUPTION ONE STEP AT A TIME

 

I guess it all helps when everybody is on the same team doesn't it? That was certainly the take away I was left with when Mark Bauman, Scot Hahn and Sandy Shantz all skated on proven allegations, complaints and even formal Municipal Elections Act (MEA) charges. They skated because there was no will or backbone to actually apply the law as clearly written. All three grossly violated the MEA and other than the court of public opinion giving them a slap on the wrist, they got off unscathed. One point I especially appreciated was the idiot out of town prosecutor Frasier Kelly actually blaming me for alleged technical errors in the filing of the charges. Duh and why do you think all those charges had to go by the perusal and supervision of a Justice of the Peace you twit? It was the JP who decided whether the charges were properly written up and laid, not me the complainant. Yes with friends like that in high places corrupt politicians may just as well keep on ignoring inconvenient (to them) election laws and maybe any others they don't care for such as provincial laws detailing municipal behaviour around closed meetings, allowing Delegations and so much more such as Procedural By-Laws and Codes of Conduct. My experience is that by far the worst behaviour and violators are councillors and mayors not citizens.   

Today's K-W Record has an article by Michael Tutton titled "Watchdog says Tim's card brouhaha shows electoral officer needs power to levy fines".  Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch has stepped into the debate about a Conservative idiot campaign manager in Nova Scotia handing out free Tim Horton cards  (for one coffee) during a campaign visit by his candidate. Clearly the alleged bribe was very small but it nevertheless is clearly contravenes elections laws. Mr. Conacher advises that cases like this can "...drift on for months and end up being abandoned." He recommends a sort of parking ticket style of fine for the lesser corrupt practices under the Elections Act. 

The point is clear. Laws that are not enforced are ignored (especially by politicians?).  So it is the duty of citizens to step in when our authorities are too busy or too friendly with the law breakers to do their jobs. Woolwich politicians are warned: fly straight or pay at least the consequences of public shaming.

INTERESTING UNANSWERED MECP QUESTIONS TO LANXESS

The Min. of Environment sent a letter dated November 8, 2024 to Lanxess regarding their 2023 Annual Monitoring Report. Now overall the MECP are Lanxess's biggest boosters and biggest defenders. This of course is prima facia evidence of corruption as this is NOT the MECP's core duty. Their core duty is to prevent pollution and when they have grossly failed at that such as with the Elmira Uniroyal Chemical case they are then supposed to be in charge of CLEANUP. They are not supposed to be in charge of the appearance of cleanup nor the chief cheerleaders of wishful thinking cleanup.

Nevertheless the MECP apparently have a problem with alleged residual DNAPL still in existence in the former on-site M-2 Landfill. Apparently decades after DNAPL was not surprisingly found in the M-2 area,  it's type and location has not been clarified to the Ministry's satisfaction. They have asked on page 5 of their Comments where it is located, why these alleged residual sources are not contributing to off-site groundwater contamination and what are the existing sources of dissolved NDMA and chlorobenzene in groundwater off and on the site.

Firstly more than likely free phase DNAPL is still in the M-2 area. Secondly what has taken the MECP so long to demand answers to questions that should have been honestly and properly answered decades ago? Is this the MECP simply going through the motions and pretending to be an honest to God regulator of polluters?

The MECP comments while addressed to Lanxess were also sent to mayor Shantz plus Tiffany Svensson. Presumably also to TRAC (totally rotten and corrupt). This should all ensure little to no pressure  for any kind of timely response and good Lord certainly no kind of timely action. Thirty-five years after the start of the November 1989 Elmira Water Crisis the biggest winners have been delay, obfuscation and deception. Obviously no urgency has ever been shown or demonstrated and to do so now would be terribly inconvenient and disrespectful to the polluters, the politicians and all their fellow travellors.  

PHONY PUBLIC CONSULTATION (TRAC) MEETS THIS THURSDAY AT 6 PM. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS

 

I will not be attending either in person or by Zoom because the meeting is too ridiculous, dishonest and pathetic. Let's see how long the twits in charge keep posting the videos of these meetings five days afterwards on the Township's website. At least watching it there I don't have to quell my contempt and disgust for the conspiracy of silence around so much of the former Uniroyal site in Elmira. The lying and deceit and ignorance is really difficult to see and hear. Some members don't know how badly they are being manipulated, others do and aren't keen on it and the final group know and contribute to this manipulation and dishonesty.

The Agenda for the meeting Thursday appears light with discussion of the replacement of pumping well PW5 by PW6 approximately TWO YEARS late.  I know, I know it's all for show so why take their claims of hydraulic containment seriously? PW5 was supposed to in conjunction with PW4 hydraulically contain the Municipal Upper (MU) Aquifer on-site thus preventing Uniroyal's grossly contaminated on-site aquifers from discharging into the off-site, downgradient aquifers. Lanxess are also supposed to be presenting an alleged 2018 Technology Evaluation Update. Hoo boy that could be pretty funny depending on how perverted one's sense of humour is. There is also supposed to be some kind of Updated Fish Study Design. Right I'm sure it will be at least at a Grade Eight  or somewhat higher level. 

All in all it looks like business (monkey) as usual. The Minutes of the last TRAC meeting of September 12/24 are also included and are just the same nonsense and junk science (Allan Deal & DNAPLS) presented in person and in which the Chair still refuses to let any member of the public ask a question. Real nice public meeting you pack of a holes. 

FOR THE RECORD BOTH THE TOWNSHIP & THE REGION (Waterloo) KNOW ALL ABOUT EAST SIDE CONTAMINATION FROM UNIROYAL CHEMICAL

Yes I've certainly sent more data , facts and information to the Township over the years and decades than to the Region however regional councillors have received more than enough documentation from me  to know what is going on. Today's Blog post is simply to publicly advise all and sundry guilty parties that you have been formally told. I am not obligated to jump through what you decide are the appropriate hoops and loops for public input. In fact both on my own and with more computer skilled assistance I have been unsuccessful on two attempts to register with the Region of Waterloo to fill out some kind of survey on the Elmira By-Pass.. 

The utter lack of interest and investigation of the Stroh and Martin properties is beyond unreasonable and biased. There is more than enough data, facts and documentation including topographic maps to prove that thousands of gallons and more of Uniroyal's toxic liquid wastes including Agent Orange, NDMA, DDT, dioxins, 2,4-D,  2,4,5-T and more were discharged from Uniroyal's east side pits and ponds (RPE 1-5) via overfilling, breaches, rainfall assisted overflow and simple gravity flowing liquid wastes from the elevated pits and ponds downwards onto the neighbouring Stroh farm. The only unanswered question is not whether it occurred but how severe and damaging the contamination is to lifeforms including human, in and around the downstream Creek. Later on a Drain, Ditch & Berm was built on the Stroh farm both to drain the chemical swamp on both their properties as well as to limit erosion of the "sink" of toxic chemicals in the lower areas east of the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm.  The Drain or Ditch brought both ground and surface water from Uniroyal onto the Stroh and Martin properties. The Berm literally a few feet to the east of the Drain and Ditch blocked the rampaging Canagagigue Creek when it was in full flood mode from continued scouring out of this "sink" of toxic contamination albeit lots has already gone downstream since the 1950s. 

Hence not only yesterday's and today's  Blog posts are being sent to both Township and Regional councillors but also last Saturday's post on the matter has already been sent to both. Frankly I expect nothing from corrupt politicians who are part of a conspiracy of silence, pretending ignorance. Oh and by the way they are also being sent to both the K-W Record and the Woolwich Observer and generally ignored by both. Print media are hurting and likely are trying to avoid biting the hands that feed them. Clearly the Marshall family subscription hasn't bought me much influence with either newspaper.

K-W RECORD CHIMES IN ON ELMIRA BYPASS MEETING

 

Something is amiss in the projections of vehicles using Arthur St.  Allegedly 700 of the 1,050 trucks per day travelling on Arthur St. are going to or coming from designated locations within Elmira and are coming and going generally to and from the south not the north to service factories etc. Also we are told that the majority of the town's industrial area such as Lanxess, Sulco (CCC), Elmira Pump, EGS, Bridgeland Terminals etc. are on the east side of town . In fact most are right along Union St.  Absolutely none of these locations remotely requires their trucks going through downtown Elmira . To be blunt they would be idiots to drive their trucks to downtown Elmira (Arthur St) in order to get out of town. Simply use the already existing and recently upgraded Union St. to go south .  If you're going east or west then access Church St. at Duke St.  North might require Riverside Dr. out to Arthur St. north of the downtown.

The Record article written by Bill Jackson is titled "Meeting for possible bypass draws crowd in Elmira" and is on page A5. Our non-illustrious mayor Shantz prefers the east side route of course.  It will likely please the few industries on the east side of town north of Church St. such as the Pet Food Plant, Bio-En etc. Again I suspect that they are indeed driving right through the downtown to and from their businesses. So is this push for an east side route all about pleasing two or three businesses as well as covering over hundreds of tonnes of toxic liquid wastes that have migrated (gravity flowed) from the former Uniroyal Chemical over to the east side Stroh and Martin farms? 

I'VE EARNED THE RIGHT TO WALK OUT ON WOOLWICH'S DOG & PONY SHOWS

Now a nitpicker and there are lots of them could criticize and say that it was a Regional Dog & Pony Show. Big deal. It was a Woolwich issue, held in Woolwich at a Woolwich venue (arena) and our Woolwich mayor was at the front of the room making introductions.  I repeat that I've earned the right from 35 years of activism, volunteerism and living here for over 30 years to walk out of crap meetings when I see and smell them. In fact my specific volunteerism and activism are directly related to the alleged issues being discussed which included an Elmira By-Pass going up the east side of Elmira through Uniroyal Chemical contaminated properties such as the Stroh and Martin farms.

I mentioned here yesterday that one regional presenter advised that soil and groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the Canagagigue Creek could impact the construction of a new bridge over the Creek to permit passage of cars and trucks away from Elmira's downtown area. Having both heard her remarks and eventually having also read them it could be construed that she was only talking about the DDT, dioxins, agent orange components etc. above health criteria in the creekbank soils, creek sediments and floodplain soils.

There is much more despite our municipal, regional and provincial authorities best attempts to deceive and cover them up. NDMA was found in a deep aquifer approximately 150 metres upgradient (i.e. groundwater flow)  on the Stroh farm. DDT and dioxins have been found above health criteria wherever their extremely limited sampling has taken place whether only 15 cm. (5.9 inches) below ground surface the length of the property line between Uniroyal and the Stroh farm or even in the sediments of the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm (SDDB). The sediment reading for 2,3,7,8 TCDD (dioxin) in the SDDB was 24.2 parts per trillion (ppt) whereas the health criteria is .7 ppt.  Yes that criteria is decimal 7  not 7.0 ppt.

We were advised that there were no microphones and that questions could only be asked privately to selected regional and municipal officials present at the end of the meeting.  Mayor Shantz please read my lips :  "That is not a public meeting or even close!" 

INDEED LAST NIGHT'S MEETING WAS A DOG & PONY SHOW

 

It was not a Public Meeting. The yahoos didn't even have a single microphone available at the start of the meeting which was attended by my guess maybe 80 to 90 people . Maybe more, hard to say as most were sitting but many stranding. We were advised that at the end of the presentation they would like questions to be directed privately to individual staff  (Region & Township) present. Again a true public meeting has microphones in the gallery to allow questions to and answers from the presenters to be heard by all present.

One huge item was told to me afterwards and that was the lady from the Region while discussing Slide 26 in the presentation stated that there was known soil and groundwater industrial contamination in the vicinity of the creek which could impact construction of a new bridge crossing the creek to enable the proposed by-pass on the east side. Now at first I thought that she was discussing the known soil and sediment contamination on the Stroh farm as well as in the Stroh Drain, Ditch & Berm which discharges into the creek. Perhaps she was or she was simply advising what the decades of sediment and creekbank soil sampling have constantly shown which is toxic contamination well above any health criteria whether provincial or federal. Either way it is a major concern that needs to be recognized and dealt with. To date not so much as a single downstream shovel of toxic contamination has been removed other than for sampling purposes.

Luminaries present included the mayor, a couple of councillors,  Mark Bauman (past councillor), Art Woods and Ken Seiling. I didn't see Chuck Martin or the Elmira Land Development Co. but they might have been there. Sebastian was there as well as three former CPAC members including myself. Also present were a couple of past APT members. Plus lots of concerned citizens.

HMM SHOULD I PREJUDGE TONITE'S PUBLIC MEETING AS A DOG & PONY SHOW?

 

7 pm. at the Memorial Centre (Arena) on Snyder Ave.  Yes I think based upon the 35 year history of deception, delays and obfuscation I am fully entitled to assume the worst. That said however the good news is that I am quite willing to be wrong or even surprised on the matter. Afterall go in expecting the worst and there's at least a chance that it won't be as bad as you expect.

Three issues are on the table although our authorities are pretending that there are only two. The THREE are soil and sediment contamination, a truck by-pass around Elmira's downtown and so called industrial development lands. Now nobody wants to discuss the migrating contamination, past, present or future from Uniroyal Chemical's toxic behaviour. This migration was via air, groundwater, surface water and soil vapours. The easiest way to deny this is simply by refusing to do legitimate, professional sampling by third party experts unrelated to either the MECP, Lanxess or GHD (consultants) . Of course not Stantec either based upon their financial and professional relationship with Lanxess 

All three of these issues need to be addressed separately. None of this combining two or three of them together and pretending to give equal priority to the never ending leaking contamination into the Canagagigue Creek. Maybe that gamesmanship is part of the whole scheme. Agree to clean up one or two alleged "hotspots" in the Creek first and then a few years later when the Creek is still contaminated it can be blamed on the new industrial/commercial development, and or gas and oil from truck traffic or even contaminants from rubber tires wearing on the new highway by-pass. 

Professional liars require muddying conditions in order to blur the truth to their liking.

ELMIRA BY-PASS - THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN OPTION

 

According to the Region of Waterloo this is a viable option.in order to keep trucks out of the narrow and congested downtown. From south to north one turns left at Listowel Rd. (#86) which is at the traffic light at the south end of Elmira. To the right is Union St. which would be the start of two other options albeit both on the east side of town. So once one has turned left when coming in from St. Jacobs or Kitchener-Waterloo one continues westwards to the traffic light at Floradale Rd. A right turn then has one travelling northwards towards the round about at Church St. . Straight through the roundabout hus staying on Floradale Rd. until the first crossroad which is Reid-Woods Dr. A right turn there takes one eastwards right across to Arthur St (#85) where a left turn will take you northwards . Elmira is now behind you with the downtown sucessfully avoided. 

Now unlike the east side route which requires miles of road building as well as a major new bridge across the Canagagigue Creek  for one of the east side options, the west side option only requires upgrades and likely an extra lane or so for tractor trailers. No new roads and certainly no new bridges . The cost of the west side option is tiny compared to the east side options of which one ending just at the west side of the current bridge over the Canagagigue Creek at Church St. appears bizarre and difficult for tractor trailers to traverse. The other east side option will be the most expensive by far traversing both the Canagagigue plus floodplains regularly flooded by the Creek as well as traversing over and likely intentionally burying Uniroyal Chemical toxins such as Agent Orange, dioxins, DDT, NDMA, lindane, PAH and more.

The west side option is the no brainer however that likely will not please the north end industries and their reliance on incoming and outgoing trucks who will most benefit from an expensive, environmentally damaging east side By-Pass.  This will be a private gain for the few paid for by major public funds of the many to their disadvantage .  

LOCATION OF ELMIRA BY-PASS HAS BEEN A DONE DEAL FOR MANY, MANY YEARS

 

DOES WOOLWICH BULL*+#T  LOOK OR  SMELL LESS OFFENSIVE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE'S?

Apparently they think so. They think that theirs smells like roses. Roses in springtime.  Beautiful roses in a flower shop.  Please don't disabuse them about that. They have very thin skin. Afterall at politician's school they are taught that it is better to give than to receive. It is the duty of all elected or appointed officials to keep their lying skills in good practice and form. There are so many things that we the people are simply too weak and stupid to be able to understand hence we delegate all the difficult decisions to others who have stepped up and said "ME, ME, ME ... I want to be on the gravy train"  oops I mean "ME, ME, ME I want to be the one in charge making all the decisions of course always in the public interest.

Four and a half years ago there was discussion and reports in and around Woolwich and the Region of Waterloo regarding adjusting boundaries, Township geographical limits, location of new industrial lands, small additions to prime agricultural land and of course the proposed location of the ELMIRA BY-PASS. I have several maps showing the BY-PASS running up the east side of Elmira just to the east of Lanxess Canada. The proposed roadway runs through both the Stroh and Martin farms. 

Yet this latest paperwork from the Region talks about three options with only one of the three following the route through two east side farms, covering up the migrated contamination from Uniroyal Chemical and crossing the Canagagigue Creek. Of course costs will be much higher on the east side but most of them will be borne by the taxpayer allowing Bio-En, the Pet Food plant and other north end industries better truck access without them paying the bulk of costs. Such a deal plus it helps save Lanxess hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs as well.

Basically it's a win-win-lose with as usual the public, local citizens, taxpayers all losing. This is exactly what we hire politicians to do. Squeeze the public for private benefits. 

LATEST NEWS ON THE PROPOSED/ALLEGED ELMIRA BY-PASS

 This latest and different news comes from today's Waterloo Region Record.  The story written by Bill Jackson is titled "Two-part EA initiated for Elmira truck bypass, Hwy. 85 upgrades" So much for on-line links, web addresses and other assorted bullsh*# that simply weeds out the older, more issue knowledgeable citizens from the younger, less involved but more computer savvy citizens. There apparently are now THREE different options to get the truck traffic out of downtown Elmira. Four if you count the "Do Nothing" Option. The options include a by-pass up the west side of Elmira using existing roads such as Listowel Rd. westwards to Floradale Rd. followed by a right turn northwards on Floradale Rd. That route continues to Reid Woods Dr. where a right turn (eastwards) takes you back to Arthur St. Then left (north) onto Arthur and you have by-passed Elmira in its' entirety.  The next option is straight up (i.e. north) Union St. where it starts at Arthur & Listowel Rd.  In other words if you're already heading north from St. Jacobs on Arthur St. then turn right onto Union St. at the south end of Elmira. Now Union St. northwards ends at Erb St. right beside Uniroyal/Lanxess Canada. Union St. would have to be extended approximately 150 metres to Church St. right near the west end of the bridge crossing the Canagagigue Creek. Then cross the Creek (west to east side) and a new road to the left probably just past the cemetery on the left would be built to run north to Kennig Place. The third option is the stinker that runs from Union St. south through the Stroh and Martin farms and ends up on the east side of Lanxess at Church St. or Hwy # 86. From there it too would have to be extended further northwards and hook into Kennig Place. This is the "stinker" option as it ruins two farms, is more expensive as it has to cross over a ton of low lying Canagagigue floodplain and also buries Uniroyal Chemical's dioxins, DDT, Agent Orange etc. under tons of fill and asphalt none of which will stop it from migrating into the Camagagigue Creek and further downstream to continue its seven decades plus of damage. 

SO WHAT ARE MY POLITICAL BELIEFS & UNDERSTANDINGS?

 I believe that 85% of the people who run for political office are inherently self-centred and dishonest.  I believe that 90% who succeed and get elected are inherently self-centred and dishonest. I believe that of those who have stayed and run for reelection  95% are self-centred and dishonest. Generally honest people do not want to be surrounded by professional, liars, cheats and thieves and if they've served one term they have learned how corrupt the whole process is.

Generally speaking I believe that dishonesty is not inherent to one party versus another. Yes my leanings are more left than right however I am aware of honest people who support Progressive Conservatives here in Ontario. They even clench their teeth and support (sort of) Doug Ford our current a**hole (my biased!) premier..  On the other hand perhaps the PCs clear, pro business bias simply reflects some of their honest beliefs that money and the economy are everything and you only tinker with capitolism at your extreme peril. Perhaps many Liberals are equally as pro business biased but simply speak softer and with more alleged humanity and caring for the less fortunate.  Hence in order of overall honesty and decency I might rank the Greens first, NDP second, Liberals third and Conservatives last.  Now do keep something in mind. That listing/ranking of mine is basically in reverse order of time spent as the government of the day. In other words it may be much easier for the Greens and NDP to appear better and superior but they have never had to balance a budget, cut funding or make very difficult governance decisions. 

In other words I am tossing the Liberals and Conservatives a bone here. Compromise often is neither pretty nor decent but is a major part of politics.

THIS IS WOOLWICH & REGIONAL POLITICAL CORRUPTION AT IT'S WORST AND MOST ARROGANT

 So this is how regional Council pays back loyal mayors who have swallowed regional initiatives not in the public interest. This is how the Region of Waterloo reward Sandy and Woolwich Council for not making a big stink over our Transfer Station being removed. This is how they reward Woolwich for our in town police force no longer being here.  Lawn watering bans, garbage pickup every second week only : what other services have been cut all the while our taxes are rising? Thank the Region of Waterloo.

Next Thursday at 7 pm. in the Woolwich Memorial Centre we will hear plans to reduce truck traffic in downtown Elmira. I doubt that anybody is actually opposed to that idea. It's how they want to do it that rankles. For 35 years Uniroyal Chemical and corporate successors have run the alleged "cleanup" of our groundwater, air, soils and surface water (Canagagigue Ck.). The air is better, the soils are not, the groundwater still is not fit to drink and to date not one shovel full of Uniroyal's toxic sludges downstream in the Creek has been removed. Not one shovelful. Lots of studies, lots of deceptions and lots of lies.

Please come out this coming Thursday, November 7 and see your professional liars (politicians) in action. They are smooth, they are trained and they are practiced. So what if the Creek, it's rural inhabitants the further downstream Grand River and  the soils and sediments remain contaminated for yet another 75 years. The politicians have done their job. They have talked their way out of a proper cleanup. They have lied and lied in order to minimize the harm that has been done and continues to be done.