POLLUTERS' TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS ARE WRITING NONSENSE AND GETTING AWAY WITH IT

What incentive is there for technical consultants to write quality technical reports that would withstand the scrutiny of other experts and their peers? That is both the question and the problem. There is no incentive. Conestoga Rovers are paid for each and every word they put in their reports by their clients, in this case Chemtura Canada of Elmira, Ontario. There is no peer review as with proper scientific reports. For a hydrogeological report for eaxample to be peer reviewed it takes an individual or a group with money to hire another consulting engineering firm with expertise in the field to do the work. Past Woolwich Councils did spend some money on an allegedly independent hydrogeologist. The results for the money were mixed. Good insights and comments would be quickly retreated from when CRA and the M.O.E. either attacked the position expressed or bluntly just said no to suggestions and recommendations. Hence mixed results.

Currently the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) are requesting funding from Chemtura to pay for peer reviews. While it is appropriate that the destroyer of Elmira's groundwater and so much more should pay for peer reviews; it isn't likely to happen. Why should it? Their consultants CRA have free rein. They can write the most ridiculous, amateurish and riddled with errors bullshit imaginable and who's to dispute it? There's the rub. I can and I do. Most times Chemtura and CRA do their best to pretend serious, written criticisms don't exist. As however I am both a very knowledgable and informed member of the public and I am a member of CPAC's sub-committee known as SWAT; it occasionally is impossible for them to ignore my critiques. Then they have their hired guns (CRA) simply write up another nonsensical, error riddled report.

Currently Chemtura appear to be reneging on their promise of a year ago to improve their pretend off-site cleanup. After severe criticism from CPAC's Resolution of a year and a half ago, they decided to triple off-site pumping and do some off-site source removal via In-Situ Chemical Oxidation. Now we are being treated to CRA's latest written drivel suggesting that the two chosen and appropriate off-site locations for source removal are not tenable. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't; but to date CRA's written rationale is illogical and filled with errors. To add to that Chemtura don't even want to discuss/debate it in the appropriate forum namely public CPAC meetings. Instead they've held a private by invitation meeting only and specifically even banned the local media. CPAC were invited to send a pair of representatives. This is a company used to getting their own way and writing their own rules. The result is they have destroyed our local drinking water and gotten away with it.

15TH DAY OF OMB HEARING & NEARLY THE END

Yesterday was a very short day and it dealt with Reply witnesses and Argument first as to which Reply witnesses were appropriate and which were not. After the smoke cleared Mr. Pickfield on behalf of the Hunder proposal was not permitted to reexamine Mr. Gastmeyer as the Chair concluded that Mr. Emeljanows testimony on behalf of the Township did not open new ground to which Hunder and their consultant (Mr. Gastmeyer) needed to reply.

On the other hand Mr. Cisco, a planner, was reexamined in order to respond to evidence of Mr. Kennallys on behalf of Woolwich Township. In essence Mr. Cisco advised the Chair (OMB) that he could agree to greater noise control over the development by the Township as well as to further notes on the site plans dealing with importation of recycling materials. Finally Mr. Cisco on behalf of the proponent also agreed to marking certain tonnage limits in the site plan notes. The one item he categorically did not agree with was any form of Sunset Clause otherwise known as a hard deadline for the duration of the gravel pit operation.

It is my understanding that we are finished with all witnesses and all that's left is Argument/Summation. That will begin on Tuesday October 8, 2013 at 10 am..

It's not over till it's over however I have an opinion as to which way it will go. I also have an opinion in regards to the process in its' entirety and what it is supposed to be accomplishing versus the reality. These opinions I will withhold until the Hearing is entirely completed which I think will be at the end of Tuesday.

DDT STILL CAUSING DAMAGE IN THE CANAGAGIGUE CREEK

Yesterday's Elmira Independent has the following story "High levels of DDT "a cause for concern"" as well as an Editorial by Gail Martin titled "Serving as a watchdog". Gail's Editorial points out that CPAC can take credit for requesting downstream testing in the Canagagigue Creek to determine if there are still Dioxin and DDT issues impacting the environment.

Her story also indicates that a second round of testing has occurred this spring which also points out DDT at levels high enough to adversely effect benthic organisms such as midges, chironomids and other small critters living in the sediments. At this point in time a more comprehensive study is being suggested to get to the bottom of things. Of course this enhanced study could have and should have been done the first time around but the M.O.E. are long on talk and inaction and very short on actually taking informed and intelligent advice. Afterall it's not their money; it's ours.

14TH DAY (Wed.) OF HUNDER PIT OMB HEARINGS

Dr. Heck (sp.??) was on the stand at the start of the day being further examined by Mr. Paton on behalf of the CWRA. Dr. Heck added that even the subsoil below the topsoil requires cracks and fracturing to allow excess water to drain. He further advised that the current soils quality should be the target versus simply "maximizing" soil rehabillatation. As I understood him there is a problem with early progressive rehabillatation in that once done; if the water table rises then at that point it's too late to raise the pit floor and rehabillatated soils above it. He also expressed concerns with the amount of compaction that occurs. Although there will be ripping applied to the pit floor prior to adding soils, Dr. Heck would like greater details as to how much ripping, how much criss-crossing etc.. He also believes that it is inevitable that subsoils will be mixed with topsoils thus degrading the topsoils significantly.

Mr. Pickfield cross-examined Dr. Heck with reasonable sucess. He pointed out that while Dr. Heck is certainly an expert and authority on soils, that his gravel pit experience was very limited. Mr. Pickfield also pointed out the prior testimony of a hydrogeologist who stated that at most the water table would only rise from it's current high water mark to .1 to .3 metre higher. Dr. Heck was not impressed with that evidence suggesting that any rise would undermine all the assumptions and rehab plans to date. Dr. Heck and Mr. Pickfield got a little bit testy during the cross-exam but that simply may have been misunderstandings in word definitions and or differences in style.

The Chair, Ms Schiller also asked Dr. Heck a few questions to clarify an earlier reference to 100 cm. above either the Bedrock or perhaps in relation to a thickness of a geological unit.

Mr. Sorenson, a planner, was next on the stand on behalf of the CWRA. He stated that the proposed Hunder Pit was "fundamentally incompatible" with the neighbourhood. He felt that the Provincial Policy Statement was a two way street and as residential subdivisions should not be approved next to an established gravel pit; that a new pit should not be approved next to established residential subdivisions. He also suggested that a municipal council has a duty to determine if there are other viable gravel sites further from prime agricultural lands that could be developed. He strongly believes that the Hunder proposal does not represent good planning and is akin to putting a heavy industrial operation next to a residential one.

Ms. Costello on behalf of Woolwich Township asked Mr. Sorenson whether planners are routinely called upon to exercise professional judgement in their duties. He stated yes. She then asked whether that judgement would often be subjective to which he also agreed.

Mr. Pickfield questioned Mr. Sorenson on his opinion that the berms were of unusual height. He suggested that both the five metre height as well as their length was an artificial way to try and maintain compatibility with the neighbourhood. He again referred to them and the proposed pit as "fundamentally incompatible" with the neighbourhood.

At the very end of the hearing yesterday the Chair posed a question for the parties to answer if they so wished. She listed a number of assumptions/conditions first and then asked "What is the impact on the status of the gravel pit in terms of the Planning Act and the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) if the temporary use by-law allowing recycling is not renewed by the Township after three years ?".

13TH DAY (Tues.) OF HUNDER PIT OMB HEARINGS

Last Wednesday afternoon I missed the Presentations by the two Participants namely Della Stroobosscher and Bob Weber. My apologies and I have now read Bob's and been verbally advised that they were both excellent. Yesterday Dan Kennally was back on the stand being cross-examined by Mr. Pickfield on behalf of Hunder Developments. Mr. Pickfield pointed out and it was agreed that there is no definition of "unacceptable impacts" in the Official Plan. Mr. Pickfield also pointed out that the Provincial Policy Statement expressly states that municipalities must protect and make available aggregate resources. Dan agreed but pointed out that that policy does not trump everything else and he believes that Woolwich Township's Official Plan and staff interpretations do not go too far or are overeaching.

Regarding the Crowsfoot Corner Dan stated that there are existing operational issues at that corner as agreed to by many experts. Dan feels that the intersection should be improved BEFORE the Hunder gravel pit is approved. Dan Kennally is in disagrrement with six of the 21 Viewsheds finding them unacceptable impacts. Mr. Pickfield pointed out that there was not provincial guidance relating to visual impacts to which Dan agreed. Therefore they are a matter of judgement and are very subjective.

With regard to recycling Mr. Pickfield explored Dan Kennally's assertion that recycling would extend the life of the pit and was thus unacceptable. Dan is relying on the Interim designation for gravel pits and feels that mixing of recycled asphalt and concrete with new gravel will slow and delay the extraction of the licensed amount.

Mr. Pickfield appeared to make headway in arguing that the lack of a known operator isn't an issue as the history of compliance deals with the licensee not the operator. After Mr. Pickfield's questions he was followed by the OMB Chair (Ms. Schiller) asking Dan questions agricultural land, visual impacts and recycling.

Mr. Paton on behalf of the Conestoga Winterbourne Residents Association (CWRA) advised that 225 families were members and contributers. Mr. Pickfield suggested that Mr. Paton's facts were not currently in evidence but did not formally object. Mr. Paton examined a Dr. Heck (sp.?) from the University of Guelph, a soil expert. He gave an interesting talk about topsoil, its structure and formation. He advised that moving or removing topsoil disconnects it from its' biological and chemical processes. Also the pore spaces collapse causing it to compact excessively. Both microbial activity and the biodiversity of the soil degrade when it is stockpiled.

Previously here in the Advocate I have questioned Woolwich Council's commitment to their residents and citizens. This hearing certainly is opening my eyes to the time and money being spent on this Hearing in opposition to another gravel pit. At the same time I see vast amounts of resources being funnelled from taxpayers and citizens on both sides of the issue into lawyers pockets. There is supposed to be changes to the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) in the wings. I would hope that streamlining and reducing paperwork and costs for all parties is part of it.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR ADVISES CHEMTURA TO REMOVE ALL CONTAMINANTS

Last Saturday's Woolwich Observer had a Letter to the Editor titled "Chemtura should completely remove all contaminants". It was written by Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach, a CPAC member for the last three years. I give Sebastian credit both for his accurate opinion that all the Dioxins and DDT should have been removed, not just a thin scraping, but also because he is complimenting an earlier Letter to the Editor by Susan Bryant. While I too agree with the contents of the earlier letter nevertheless the author has behaved rudely and badly to a number of the current CPAC members as well as to myself. It takes a big person like Sebastian to overlook that and focus on the issue at hand namely "source removal" and I give him credit for so doing.

Sebastian also analyses Chemtura's motives for doing this approximately $2.5 million cleanup. He does not buy their neverending truth spinning that there were not off-site impacts and that the cleanup was "voluntary". This has been no more than another behind the scenes sweetheart deal with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

WOOLWICH OBSERVER WEIGHS IN ON HUNDER PIT

Last Saturday's Woolwich Observer carrys this story "Woolwich maintains its opposition to Hunsberger pit". Woolwich's Director of engineering and planning has been on the stand giving evidence in opposition to the proposed gravel pit. He has stated under oath that the pit "does not constitute good planning and is not in the public interest". Township issues include unacceptable noise impacts, increased traffic at Crowsfoot Corner, unacceptable visual impacts and the rehabillation of agricultural lands. Finally Woolwich would also like a sunset clause preferably that being a time limit of fifteen years on the pit.