SO WATERLOO REGION EVENTUALLY WANTS TO DRINK LAKE ERIE WATER?

Let's continue to hold off on that originally proposed 2035 pipeline to Lake Erie. Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record carried this story "Water ban over, Toledo drinks from tap again". Apparently the recurring joys of algal blooms have hit Lake Erie once more. This particular time the bloom was closer to our U.S. neighbours as Toledo, Ohio found it necessary to close their water intake pipe from Lake Erie. Algal blooms are a companion to warm weather plus agricultural nutrients in the water. These nutrients could include nitrogen and phosphorous among others. The algal blooms end up using oxygen from the water as well as producing a bacteria known as microsystin which is a health hazard. I believe our local PHd. biologist Dr. Henry Regier has commented in the past on various causes and exacerbating conditions leading to these issues in Lake Erie.

HYDROG REPORT FOR WEST MONTROSE

This Hydrogeological Investigation is part of the Class Environmental Assessment for West Montrose and is done by Golder Associates, dated June 27, 2012. Allegedly it was done to determine if there were viable sources of groundwater near West Montrose that could be used as an alternate source to their current four river infiltration wells. A map is provided indicating the numbers of nearby wells both inside and outside West Montrose which are providing drinking water to various farms and homes. These wells are both deep overburden wells as well as bedrock wells. Personally I find the logic sorely lacking when it comes to dismissing groundwater in and around West Montrose as not being viable. Yes bedrock wells routinely have higher sulphate levels which require treatment. On the other hand they don't have bacteria such as E.Coli and Total Coliforms which are far more serious and hence require serious treatment. Golder's claim that the deep overburden aquifer may not be continuous in the area. Well my knowledge is that groundwater flows, albeit slowly. It has recharge areas and discharge areas. The real question is whether there is enough high quality water for West Montrose. Keep in mind there's only a couple of hundred people in the village. We don't need volumes capable of supplying Kitchener or Waterloo here. As far as quality goes West Montrose has been plagued with low quality, dangerously bacteria contaminated water for decades.

I was astounded to learn that there is already a drilled bedrock well in West Montrose beside the current treatment plant. Under testing it provided volumes of water far in excess of any requirements the village would ever need. It had the normal bedrock quality requiring treatment to make it taste better. Why not ask all the nearby users of bedrock wells how they feel about their water? This bedrock well actually is artesian and will flow from the ground on its' own without pumping. Claims that the wastewater from treatment will require trucking to the Waterloo Sewage Treatment Plant seem very odd to me. Here in Woolwich we have overflowing artesian wells by the Woolwich Dam and Floradale which simply discharge onto the ground, hence recharging the shallow aquifers and the lake. What's the big deal with trucking the water away? Compared to the crap routinely discharged into the Grand River from both industries and sewage treatment plants this seems innocuous.

All in all I'm seeing a strong bias not to let West Montrose have their own, new water supply. Using a pipeline makes treatment and oversight simpler for the Region. It's ironic that now the Region seem willing to spend more money on a pipeline than using local groundwater yet for twenty years they delayed getting a new desperately needed water source into the village.

IT'S IN THE WATER STUPID

Chloramines, Trihalomethanes and Turbidity have somewhat been my focus of water issues in West Montrose. That being said, the first two I felt were as a direct consequence of very high bacteria levels in the raw water. The raw water is classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water ie. GUDI. The Region in their responses to my three pages of questions attempted to put all the blame for E.Coli and Total Coliforms on the Grand River running beside the wells. Chloramine levels are a direct consequence of ammonia intentionally added to the water for secondary disinfection as it produces chloramines. The downside is that this very same ammonia can promote the growth of other bacteria in the system as well as Nitrites and Nitrates all of which are not good. The trihalomethanes are a competing chemical reaction produced by adding chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) to the water. This chlorine also produces hypochlorous acid which is the source of free chlorine which kills bacteria and more.

The Region of Waterloo falsely and inaccurately denied that chloramines, Trihalomethanes and Turbidity were problems in West Montrose drinking water. To date the 2013 Class Environmental Assessment by AECOM has made liars out of them regarding Trihalomethanes (THM) and turbidity. The chloramines haven't been discussed yet in my reading of the Class EA but I'm still expecting them to be. Apparently the addition of chlorine by way of sodium hypochlorite is also used for oxidizing iron and manganese in the water. I had felt that the Region must have been overchlorinating the raw water in order to produce so much THM but it now appears that while large amounts of chlorine are involved they are being used for both bacterial disinfection as well as oxidation of dissolved iron and manganese. Regardless it is this very large chlorine demand in the raw water that requires so much to be added. This would also explain the very high CT (contact time) of 51.4 mg/l*minute. This was another one of my questions that the Region refused to answer directly, clearly or properly.

The Annual Reports produced by the Region via a template provided by the Ministry of Environment are also being exposed as grossly inadequate. We are advised on page 46 in the EA that "flooding produces high turbidity causing wells to be shut down multiple times per year.". These multiple shutdowns per year of West Montrose wells are not being reported to the public. Finally we are advised on page 67 that well C4 in Conestoga has had bacterial problems in the past. Really? Again at first blush that is nowhere to be seen in the Annual Reports if read but once a year when they come out. However I reread the last seven years and found something that is disturbing. The 2012 Annual Report indicates well C4 was shut down for four weeks. No reason was given. Then the 2008 Annual Report indicates that well C4 was shut down for eight weeks. Again no reason was given. Finally I stopped looking after I read in the 2007 Annual Report that well C4 was shut down for the entire year. What the hell! Again no reason was given. Well I guess the reason is due to (severe?) bacterial contamination as indicated in the Class EA. Thank you Region of Waterloo and Ontario M.O.E. for your honesty and transparency. By the way are we still keen on a pipeline from Conestogo from well C3 and C4 over to West Montrose?

THE REGION OF WATERLOO ARE SHAMELESS

I've been continuing my research and reading into issues around drinking water treatment. This has included getting into the 227 page "West Montrose Water Supply Class Environmental Assessment: Project File Report" written by AECOM on January 2013. This is the report that the Region referred to in a number of their non answers to my questions. While I am not finished the report yet I can categorically say how disappointing it is. It is disappointing not for its' quality, coherence or logic but disappointing as it makes very clear how pathetic, deceptive and intentionally misleading the Region's responses to my 36 questions were.

My second question dealt with a newspaper article in the Waterloo Region Record describing the need to look at options other than a pipeline bringing Conestogo water over to West Montrose. My question clearly indicated my mistaken belief that the pipeline wasn't a done deal. Instead of clarifying and telling me that the pipeline was chosen, the Region gave me a pat answer about the objectives of the Environmental Assessment; leaving me with the understanding that the pipeline wasn't going through.

The Region numbered my questions and hence their number five asked whether the incoming water tankers to West Montrose were to improve water quality, quantity or both. Their answer was categorically "...to provide a sufficient quantity of water to the community.". AECOM's Env. Assess. Report says otherwise. From their Executive Summary to pages 11, 13, 26 and 31 there are ongoing concerns about inorganic parameters exceeding standards as well as references to "high levels of treatment the wells require", "accidental consumption of unsafe water", references to Trihalomethanes being related to high Dissolved Organic carbon (DOC) and wells being shut down due to high Turbidity (cloudiness).

Speaking of Turbidity the Region have really outdone themselves. Their question numbers 20 and 23 are my asking both about treatment problems due to turbidity as well as whether the Ministry of Environment have given them permission to relax Turbidity standards. Without answering my questions they ignore the whole major issue of Turbidity claimimg it meets all standards. This is firstly false and secondly AECOM advise on page 28 that the four West Montrose wells are required to be shut down when the Grand River rises (spring & heavy rains) due to Turbidity issues.

The inorganic parameters present are related to health issues as they impact the water treatment efficacy. Raw water with high Turbidity, high DOC, hardness, total dissolved solids (TDS) etc. makes it easier for bacteria and pathogens to slip through the treatment system. They also increase costs of treatment and as such are a major quality issue. The Region in their answers to me focused on river water as being the sole source of high E.Coli and Total Coliforms. With long term multiple septic systems nearby this seems highly unlikely but to date AECOM have not commented.

Councillor Mark Bauman made me wait four months for these pieces of shit responses from the Region of Waterloo. The M.O.E. backed the Region by claiming that somehow the Region's chloramine test results were no longer necessary or required. That is contrary to all literature describing chloramination of drinking water. Those test results are vital which is why they are part of the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS). Legal regulations don't seem to faze either the Region or the M.O.E.. In their answer to question 36 the Region advises that shut down and off-line wells must be reported in the Annual Reports. AECOM advised (pg. 28) that the West Montrose wells are shut down when there are elevated water levels in the Grand River. How strange but not a single shut down is mentioned in the Annual reports for West Montrose over the last decade due to elevated levels in the Grand River. Ombudsman look out! This Region and provincial Ministry are operating unsafely and contrary to law.

PSYCHOLOGY 101 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Again I have spent several hours today surfing the net finding articles, research papers and briefs describing the joys of chlorination, chloramination, breakpoint chlorination, filtration and assorted water treatment. I am mentally tired and ready for a nap. I'm also trying hard to understand the mindset of our municipal councillors past and present. They get paid peanuts with the exception of the Mayor (due to extra Boards, Regional Council etc.). At this point in time and after they've spent a week working, plus their council duties on top, all they want are some black and white straightforward decisions. It's the same thing with lay people on environmental committees such as CPAC. Doing and deciding the right thing really shouldn't be so difficult. This is the weakness of the whole system. Vested interests with full time trained professionals have it all sewn up. Clearly the consultants to the multi convicted polluter Uniroyal/Chemtura have a field day in manipulating subjective situations and facts made malleable by site-specific circumstances. By the time the smoke clears they can make most lay people believe that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.

What about our regional and provincial governments? Are they also vested interests whose agenda is to fool the people? The answer is yes in many areas and issues. The provincial government accept "donations" whether during election campaigns or in between. These "donations" however come with strings attached. They are strings/favours specific to the giver of the money. Regional governments are perhaps a little different. For example they are providing water to a constantly growing population crowded together. Our treated sewage gets dumped into the Grand River. Then we remove Grand River water and treat it further to get drinking water. Our polluting industries throughout Waterloo Region have used the ground as a toxic dumpsite for the last century. Our Region pretends otherwise and uses contaminated groundwater for drinking water. Then they lie about the whole process.

Back to our municipal councils. They are lay people and in some cases not particularily smart lay people. It's less work and far easier to not look deeply into issues. Leave that for staff and or consultants. When possible let other levels of government do your work for you. Hence we are right back in a circle. The Region and province (M.O.E.) tell you that the water is good so why would you go looking hard elsewhere for someone with a contrary opinion who are going to make you work harder? Especially if the contrary opinion is bringing bad news, many municipal councillors will bail out. Fast. Too many other time consuming issues out there with maybe a positive political spin to them. There is no positive political spin to bad water.

PET FOOD PLANT IN ELMIRA STINKS

Everytime I think of the smell of dogfood I think of Diacetyl at Chemtura. Diacetyl is an artificial butter flavouring and folks in Elmira used to smile when they smelled that. In comparison to solvents and worse coming from Uniroyal or Chemtura; that seemed both pleasant and harmless. Turns out it was toxic, causing "popcorn lung" both among heavy users and employees, particularily in the U.S.. Who'd have known? Well obviously the company should have known and probably did know.

Today's Woolwich Observer has a Letter to the Editor from Dr. Dan Holt, resident of Elmira and Chair of the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC). Dr. Dan is fed up with both the ongoing odours and secondly with the ongoing do nothing, lack of action coming from the Ontario Ministry of Excuses and Corporate Collusion (MOECC) also known as the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Dr. Dan is right in that the only way to get the MOECC off their butts is by constant and ongoing pressure from the public, the media or both. Otherwise the MOECC simply run interference for the offending polluter. This lack of confidence in the Ministry's willingness to fulfill their mandate probably is a major reason why Elmira citizens were so upset a few years back in regards to the then proposed Woolwich Bio-En. Bio gas is currently being produced by Bio-En and as far as I know they are being good corporate neighbours, unlike the Elmira Pet Food Plant.

PRETEND "NEGOTIATIONS"

Negotiations can only be fruitful whem both parties are holding some decent cards. They can only be fruitful if each party has something to offer the other party that they don't have. Trying to "negotiate" with Uniroyal Chemical or Chemtura Canada is a frustrating waste of time. The corporate polluter only would like the talking to continue. What they secretly fear is either CPAC or Woolwich Township to tell them to f.. off and go to hell. That would be difficult to explain to the media and to the *Responsible Care program run by the Chemical Industry Assoc'n of Canada. It would convey the very accurate reality that the company are a filthy polluter who manipulated a sweetheart deal out of the so called regulatory body (M.O.E.) two decades ago plus. All they currently require is the appearance of public consultation.

A couple of days ago I received a few more six year old documents which I as an incredibly active and informed stakeholder in Elmira for twenty-five years; should have received when they were issued. The blame for that is equally shared between all the other stakeholders including the old CPAC, the M.O.E. and Chemtura. That said once I knew of the existence of these documents, primarily two sets of Minutes out of ten technical DNAPL meetings; it was only a few months wait. There was also a Summary Table which captures reasonably well the positions of Chemtura/CRA versus those of Jaimie Connelly (M.O.E.) and Wilf Ruland, hired by the Township. The words Source Removal or Source Reduction as espoused by Wilf and Jaimie however were not included as they should have been.

These Minutes are for DNAPL Technical meetings held on June 13, 2008 and either October 28 or 29, 2008 dependant on
which paper is accurate. They certainly were not the barnburner exposes presented by Jaimie on May 2/08 or Wilf on May 15/08. That's not surprising as they were produced by Jeff Merriman of Chemtura. Nevertheless there were a couple of surprises involved. Firstly my esteem and respect for Jaimie Connelly has risen again. I'm even willing to admit that while I'm less enthused with Wilf's performance as per the Minutes; even he held up considerably better than I expected. Overall these "negotiations" were CRA & Chemtura versus Wilf and Jaimie. That would be for CRA: Mark Hilverda, Alan Deal and Steve Quigley . For Chemtura it was : Jeff Merriman & Dwight Este. Therefore it was essentially five full time professionals versus two.

There were three amateurs present and quite frankly only one even had a clue what was going on. Pat Mclean and Sandy Shantz were so far over their heads it should have been embarassing except yet again token public participation is required. The one with a clue (and more) was Susan Bryant.

My congratulations to Wilf and Jaimie because despite ongoing bullshit, lying, intransigience and deception stretching over four years; right up to the end they held their ground on several DNAPL issues. This of course is 100% contrary to what Jeff Merriman of Chemtura has repeatedly, publicly told CPAC. I'm not too much of a gentleman not to call Jeff exactly what he is; but that's for another day. Between them Jaimie and Wilf held out to the end on more work and action for the M2 area (SW), the East Central area and Source Removal or Reduction in order to improve on-site groundwater and hence off-site via leakage or other future problems. Also Wilf in particular wanted action taken on the berms between RPW6, 7 & 8. Finally in the October Minutes Wilf was silent on the need for a shallow trench downgradient of the Main tank farm. This he had held steady on for a significant time period so whether his comments weren't recorded in the October Minutes, I do not know. Certainly there is no "concensus" indicated in the Minutes.

One final point is necessary here. These "negotiations" were no more than a public relations gesture from the start. The Ontario Ministry of Excuses and Corporate Collusion (MOECC) asked Chemtura to do an overall review of the DNAPL issue. They, Woolwich Township, Chemtura, Susan Bryant, CRA and Pat McLean all knew this was a sham from the start. The secret (from the public) October 7, 1991 Settlement Agreement between Uniroyal and the M.O.E. guaranteed that Uniroyal/Chemtura had no liability for known contamination on their property. This "Indemnity" was as disgusting then as it is now. Probably Sandy Shantz and myself were the only ones who didn't know about that Indemnity. Therefore once again this onerous, four year long DNAPL "investigation" was preordained from the start. Chemtura/CRA personnel simply pretended to be carefully considering all the facts. Not one nickel was ever going to be spent on known contamination at RPW5, 6, 7, 8 and M2 etc..