UNDER RAPs (REMEDIAL ACTION PLANS)

I've recently been reading an excellent book written by John Hartig and Michael Zarull titled "Under Raps". The book has been loaned to me by a good friend and colleague here in Elmira. These "Raps" are in regards to the fourty-three Areas of Concern around the five Great Lakes both on the American side and on the Canadian side. I have been appalled of late as to both my level of ignorance as well as the general public's level of ignorance regarding this historic work done to rehabillatate the Great lakes. Eight U.S. states plus the province of Ontario are involved in this project which started in the mid 80s. It was a recommendation of the International Joint Commission's (IJC) Great Lakes Water Quality Board that started things rolling. It is absolutely astounding to me the absolute lack of publicity and media surrounding thes 43 Areas of Concern and the work done or being done.

By counting what appears to be on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes (Fig.1) there appear to be thirteen or fourteen Canadian Areas of Concern. Prior to this last week I could have named but two, namely Hamilton Harbour and Collingwood Harbour. This book does not go into all 43 Areas in detail; perhaps only a dozen. To date I've read three of them, Hamilton Harbour, Bay of Quinte and the Ashtabula River (U.S. side of Lake Erie) Area of Concern. They do take your breath away. The causes are not particularily surprising. Economic development, politics, greed and unbridled enthusiasm and confidence that building more and bigger can never be wrong. The silencing of voices of dissent from 1900 through till the 1980s, combined with the arrogance and political power of business and industry did the damage. This damage can only be mitigated now. The environment can never be fully restored.

BANNED ATRAZINE IN EUROPE IS JUST FINE HERE

Well it looks as if we have a local environmental issue that isn't the fault of our Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Atrazine is a very common pesticide used on corn fields both locally and across Canada. This is despite the European Union banning Atrazine twelve years ago! They consider it to be an endocrine disrupter linked to reproductive damage in male fish, amphibians and reptiles as well as reproductive effects and breast cancer in humans. But do not fret, Canada's PMRA (Pest Management Review Agency) are not worried.

They are conducting a special review of this long used pesticide in Canada. It is a chloinated chemical and quite capable of getting into both ground and surface water. The Region of Waterloo test for it in our drinking water and it is usually reported as <.38 parts per billion ie. less than .38 ppb. That said I have found a couple of test results at <.5 ppb and one at 1ppb. While they are a few years old that is still a little disconcerting and might mean that they had a hit at .38 ppb so simply bumped up the detection limit slightly. Not conclusive however. The Canadian drinkling water standard is 5 ppb.

Atrazine is considered ubiquitous in the environment anywhere that corn is grown in Canada. While the detected concentrations in Waterloo Region appear significantly below the drinking water standard, there are other considerations. Each and every standard is based upon the implausible and frankly impossible assumption that the particular contaminant being looked at is the one and only contaminant in the environment. Between the air we breathe, the food we eat and the water we drink we are getting dosed constantly. Just because ten contaminants individually do not exceed their standards does not mean that being exposed to ten different ones at any concentration is safe. It is not. Simply look at the cancer rates in the population today. They are ridiculous. We continue to focus on end of the pipe treatment rather than prevention for both water quality and human health.

CHEMTURA CANADA PROGRESS REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2015

On-site pumping at PW4 & PW5 were both above their target Average for the month of December. Off-site pumping however was problematic with three pumping wells being slightly below their target pumping rates. Wells W3, W4 and W5A were all on the low side due to pump failures in W4 and W5A whereas W3 was low due to activated carbon replacement in the W3 carbon adsorber. Table A.4 lists the Bypass/Upset Conditions which result in downtime for pumping wells. As usual it is a full page litany of problems and issues fortunately most of them short term for December. That said one wonders how they will sucessfully pump even twice as much water reliably and consistently, much less the triple volume they claimed they would back in November 2012.

Table A.3 is a listing of groundwater concentration of contaminants found in two of the Upper Aquifer pumping wells located in the south-east corner. This aquifer remains heavily contaminated on-site with high concentrations of Chlorobenzene, Toluene, Mercaptobenzothiazole, Carboxin and Aniline. Of course unlisted here is NDMA and many other compounds.

Table C.2 is a comparison of contaminants found upstream of Chemtura versus downstream. Recently BEHP has been found at slightly higher upstream concentrations than downstream which is peculiar. Tolune on the other hand has a slightly higher downstream average concentration than above which is to be expected as it is plentiful on Chemtura's property.

Table D.3 is a comparison of the water elevation at key groundwater and surface water pairs. The idea is to compare the two elevations to confirm that groundwater pumping has lowered the groundwater elevations in order to stop them from discharging into the creek. Unfortunately three or one half of the groundwater pairs have very small differences in elevation between the groundwater and surface water. These differences are in the vicinity of .1 metre or 4 inches or less. This is an inadequate differential to guarantee hydraulic containment.

Figure D.4 I would characterize as typical CRA/GHD? deception. It is a groundwater elevation contour map for the Upper Aquifer (UA1) on their site. It includes a Table with well over one hunderd wells and their groundwater elevations. It also shows in grey a large area on their north-east side which purports to be missing the UA1. Sadly within this grey area they have four wells shown directly on their eastern border. Lo and behold if one looks them up within the Table of over one hundred wells, they are there along with their UA1 groundwater elevations. The purpose of this deception is to continue to pretend that their grossly contaminated eastern property line is not discharging via UA1 groundwater into the Canagagigue Creek. It is.

Figures E.1-E.5 are concentrations of NDMA and Chlorobenzene on the west and south side of their site either on their property line or just over. While Chemtura like to brag about their concentration Trends decreasing I find it bizarre that so many of them are still well above their respective drinking water standards. CH47 exceeds both, CH56B well exceeds the NDMA standard and both CH89 and OW165 occasionally exceed the NDMA standards. I don't find this reassuring at all.

Finally Table F.1 advises us that nearly twenty years after discovering LNAPL (light Non Aqueous Phase Liquids) in their subsurface on the west side they are still there in varying thicknesses floating on top of the water table. These thicknesses vary from Traces to 1/3 and nearly 1/2 a metre in thickness. This is not acceptable after twenty years of allegedly trying to remove them. LNAPLS include floating petroleum hydrocarbons, gasolines, oils, Benzene, toluene, and more.

All in all another depressing Progress Report wrapped in giftpaper and presented with a ribbon on top. That site is a mess and will continue thusly for decades to centuries without considerably more source removal being done on site.

YET MORE UNDECLARED ELECTION EXPENSES FOR MAYOR SHANTZ

While the Minutes of the last MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) meeting posted on the Township's website conveniently don't show it; Chair Carl Zehr specifically asked mayor Shantz if there were ANY minor or major election expenses left that she had not declared. Mayor Shantz responded "Absolutely not". Similarily last July Justice David Broad of Superior Court reinstated Sandy Shantz to the mayor's position, CONDITIONALLY. The conditions included her filing a "full and complete" Financial Statement. She filed this Financial Statement on August 20, 2015. It did not include the following expenses.

Mayor Shantz declared $1,500 expenses for her campaign website and received a receipt for that. Later after I raised questions about her campaign videos, her cousin Councillor Larry Shantz produced a letter stating that the $1,500 included as well a total of twelve campaign videos produced at twelve different locations on twelve different days. Larry was the owner of a commercial Web design company which produced both the campaign website and the twelve videos. I have recently received quotes for producing short videos and they were between $200-$400 each or $2,400-$4,800 for all twelve. Somewhat to my surprise the quote for the campaign website was to my mind very modest, namely $200. Using the lowest $200 value for each video ($200x12) gives $2,400 plus $200 for the website and mayor Shantz should have declared a MINIMUM of $2,600 not $1,500. Keep in mind discounted prices (ie.donations) need to be declared both as donations (Contributions) as well as Expenses at their full value.

Back on January 5, 2016 I posted here that I had recently found undeclared expenses and sent them on to the prosecuter in Kitchener. As the court date was the next day I decided not to give the details out publicly immediately before court. Now is a more appropriate time. Mayor Shantz hired a four piece commercial band to play at her victory party held at the Elmira Curling Club. While she declared a total of $396 for her victory party, that only covered the facility rental and alcoholic drinks. Initially there were no food costs although months later she has suggested that there were plates of donated food. Meanwhile the local, well known professional band were not expensed which is yet another contravention of the Municipal Elections Act. I have received a number of suggested rates for a commercial four person band ranging generally from $400 to $800 for the evening. Many of you may recall the photograph of former mayor Bill Strauss dancing with mayor-elect Shantz at that party on the front page of the Woolwich Observer. In the background are members of the band. Therefore again using the MINIMUM rate of $400, this expense was not declared by mayor Shantz over the course of four Financial Statements, two MECAC hearings and one Superior Court hearing. As per the preceding paragraph it is irrelevant whether or not the band charged full price ($400-$800) or gave the mayor a discounted price (donation).

To date the issue has not been the absolute total of her expenses as they so far appear to still be below the maximum permitted. The issue is her refusal to voluntarily declare all her legitimate and proper election expenses. The rules are not in place for everybody but her, nor are they mere suggestions. Also it is not up to a citizen to have to ferret out all these undeclared expenses. The Municipal Elections Act (MEA) is very clear. A reasonable belief by a citizen that a candidate has committed but a single contravention of the MEA is grounds for the Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) to order a forensic audit. Then a professional auditor with the authority of the MEA behind him can investigate in depth including examination of bank accounts, interviewing witnesses etc.. Woolwich citizens you have been snowballed yet again. Sorry Sandy but that in itself is a form of corruption. Including MECAC's contribution only makes it worse.

HAS MAYOR SHANTZ ACTUALLY SICCED THE FEDS ON CHEMTURA ?

Last evening was interesting. Woolwich Council seemed rather subdued, dare I say intimidated? No can't be just because of a little outburst of democracy over on the outskirts of Woolwich, namely in Breslau. Could it? Regardless they seemed almost accomodating when they advised me that normally Delegations regarding technical matters at Chemtura are to be handled by the Township's TAG committee. TAG of course stands for Technical Advisory Group. TAG normally do not allow Delegations and in fact even written comments are to be vetted through the committee's Chair, Dr. Richard (Dick) Jackson. Therefore while Council were very polite regarding their claim that as a rule they didn't want to hear "technical" Delegations, nevertheless their position is bizarre. They had advised me right from the start that yes they would listen to my Delegation last night but it was an exception. Really? Is this just another attempt to make up new rules on the fly? Are they trying to keep Chemtura issues away from public Council meetings which are attended by our local media? What is going on now?

I had presented a Delegation last evening dealing with CPAC's (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) Press Release which clarified Chemtura's press release and hopefully provided a more balanced view of the recently released "East Side Soil & Groundwater Investigation" Report. The main gist of my Delegation was that the Ontario Ministry of the Environment had taken thirty years to order an investigation and needed to be upgraded as the authority in charge, perhaps by the federal government. Lo and behold mayor Shantz publicly claimed that they Woolwich were already dealing with the federal government in regards to Chemtura. Wow! I was shocked and in my excitement responded "Excellent!" to her.

Reality has set in. Our current mayor suffers from the same affliction as our last mayor. Uncharitably that could be referred to as dishonesty. On the other hand I began to understand that mayor Cowan simply liked to tell people what they wanted to hear. Some politicians think that telling untruthful good news gets them further than telling truthful bad news. Go figure! So despite the incredibly good news transmitted to myself and the public last evening in Council Chambers that the federal government have been approached by Woolwich Township for help in dealing with Chemtura Canada, my enthusiasm is restrained. If indeed this has occurred then my sincerest congratulations to mayor Shantz and Woolwich Council. If on the other hand we are advised of a correction or clarification otherwise, then thanks for nothing, again.

DO I NEED TO TAKE WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP BACK TO THE OMBUDSMAN?

Knowing Woolwich Township's tendency to be economical with the truth, I was skeptical of their repeated in camera meetings and vague to non-existent rationales for them. Therefore a year ago I went through a few Township Agendas and Minutes looking for what appeared to be particularily egregious cases. In no time at all I had four or five examples of what I thought were dishonest applications of the grounds for Councillors to meet secretly... oops in camera. Lo and behold the Ombudsman agreed with four of the five examples that I had presented to him and Woolwich Township were duly corrected.

It looks as if more correction may be required. Last Saturday's K-W Record carried an article titled "Multiplex board draws concern". I also wrote about it yesterday here in the Advocate. While I have made my displeasure at the biased and incompetent behaviour of MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) clear; my concerns about conflicts of interest on that committee were ignored by them as well as by Woolwich Township. In the Saturday newspaper article, lawyer John Mascarin advised that "...a citizen could choose to file an application in court that the members violated the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.". Indeed that is one route although of course your Application would be opposed by the Township and they would be using your money and that of your fellow citizens against you. This behaviour of using citizens money to fight against the public interest in court is not unknown among other public bodies including school boards.

The Record's article is focused on conflicts of interest on the city of Cambridge's sports multiplex task force. A definition was provided and I quoted it in yesterday's posting here in the Advocate. As of January 1, 2016 the Ombudsman has greater powers and authority in regards to municipalities and their wayward behaviours. It is a sad reflection upon our local governance that there have been public demands for the Ombudsman's oversight on municipal matters for decades. It is finally here and for these rights to flourish they must be exercised. Sometimes I think that abuse of power and authority must be addictive. Otherwise why continue when you know you will be caught and publicly chastised. Long past time to shape up Woolwich Township.

WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP MAY BE NO MORE CORRUPT THAN THEIR NEIGHBOURS

Saturday's Waterloo Region Record carried the following story titled "Multiplex board draws concern", written by Paige Desmond. An involved Cambridge citizen has pointed out that there is a conflict of interest with certain members of Cambridge's sports mutiplex task force. This gentleman, Derek Coleman, hired a well known municipal lawyer by the name of John Mascarin of Aird and Berlis LLP in Toronto. He unequivocaly has advised the City of Cambridge that they have indeed a board or municipal committee of council with members in a conflict of interest position. Mr. Coleman also advises that all the decisions made by the multiplex board are tainted because of these members with conflicts of interest.

Flash forward to Woolwich Township the home and most nurturing environment of conflicts of interest. I have written here of the conflicts of interest of two former CPAC members and currently members of TAG, namely Pat Mclean and Susan Bryant. I have also written here of the conflicts of interest on the Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC). Along with that I have advised Woolwich Staff and Council in writing of all these conflicts as well as the specific details. They include Chair Carl Zehr and Tom Jutzi although I give Mr. Jutzi credit for not being available for the last MECAC meeting. While Woolwich and MECAC stickhandled about his non appearance it is my belief that he was doing the honourable thing.

"According to the act (Municipal Conflict of Interest Act), a member has an indirect pecuniary interest when the member is a shareholder, director, or senior officer of a corporation or is a member with a pecuniary interst in the matter, or the member is in the employment of a person that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.". In my opinion this covers quite nicely the situation with the four persons mentioned here in Woolwich Township although it is possible that the employment situation is now in the past. That said the Terms of Reference for example of MECAC also deal with perceived conflicts of interest which certainly would include a history of a past longterm employment relationship.

I think what must be made clear is that municipalities routinely hire (MECAC) or appoint (formerly CPAC, currently RAC & TAG) committees to do their bidding while hypocritically referring to them as independent, arms length bodies. They are of course no such thing. Yes they can operate independently provided they are going in the direction that Council wants. If their independent research and examination of the facts takes them in a direction inconvenient to the Council then they will either be ordered to change course or members will be summarily removed. Been there and seen it.