Dr. RICHARD JACKSON RESIGNS AS TAG CHAIR

Not even close to a surprise. Prior to the start of the meeting I went up to Dr. Jackson and asked him if he was planning on staying on for another year. He advised that he would make a formal announcement at the end of the meeting regarding that. Also recently here in the Advocate (Fri. Sept. 2 ) I advised that Dr. Jackson's likely departure would look very bad on Mark B. & Sandy. In fact they were both present last evening and I expect it was to "observe" Dr. Jackson and whether or not he threw any stones their way. He firstly suggested he wanted to retire then he added that the issues were "intractable". Finally he commented that the "intractable" issues were not technical, they were public policy issues. O.K. now that is hitting the mark! Public policy issues as in politics front and centre.

Dr. Jackson referenced the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) which was signed on to by Ontario as well as Canada and the U.S.. He also stated that Terri Buhlman of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment has stated that Article 2 regarding eliminating or reducing threats to the Great Lakes does not apply to the Canagagigue Creek which via the Grand River empties into Lake Erie. Dr. Jackson made several other comments again last evening castigating the Ontario M.O.E. for their stalling, delays and overall refusal to follow either their own or Canadian Sediment Guidelines in the creek. Finally he also commented upon the federal government passing the buck back to the Ontario M.O.E. when they should be stepping in. Through all of this he took no direct shots at Sandy and Mark. Chemtura, CRA, M.O.E. absolutely. He advised that TAG had a decision to make regarding Media Strategy which I will follow up on later.

There was a Supplemental On-Site Investigation of the East Side received by TAG on August 10/16. I spoke up and asked whether it would be made available to the public or not. It turns out there was a snafu and only a couple of TAG members received the hard copy and none an electronic version which could be put on the Township website. Lisa Schaefer indicated that she would look into it and post it on-line as soon as possible. The results indicated more of the same contamination found over a year ago. Conestoga Rovers (Alan Deal) claim that perhaps contaminated fill from a cleanup in the 80s is to blame. Nice try there Mr. Deal.

To her modest credit Susan Bryant is opposed to another useless and biased HHRA (Human Health Risk Assessment) being done.
Afterall the only reason Chemtura and the M.O.E. want to do it is because they can control the result. They will interview local creek residents who will say they are aware and they avoid the creek as much as possible. End of story right there allegedly for health risks. TAG (Technical Advisory Group) have already passed a Motion opposing an HHRA study.

Dr. Jackson kind of put it to TAG in requiring a decision regarding a media strategy. Pat Mclean unsurprisingly spoke the strongest against TAG even having such a strategy. She wants RAC (Remediation Advicory Committee) to handle it which essentially means zero or less public transparency regarding contamination cleanup failures.

Sebastian pressed for a Motion of Censure against Chemtura due to their adamant decades long claims that yes they would clean up the Elmira Aquifers by 2028. Now in the last couple of months they are admitting that that is unlikely to happen. David Hofbauer assisted Sebastian with a friendly Amendment but only the two of them voted in favour. Again it was Pat Mclean coming to Chemtura's defence as expected. As she probably is still receiving expense paid trips around North America due to Chemtura's positive reference getting her put on the National Advisory Panel of the Chemical Industry Association of Canada; this is no surprise to me.

Dr. Jackson's resignation takes effect on December 31, 2016. This is a major loss to the public although Chemtura, the M.O.E. and certain local politicians are thrilled. Those politicians will be even more thrilled if Dr. Jackson confines his criticism to the big players and avoids naming the local, little fish.

M.O.E. MISDIRECTION: HIDING THE FOREST WITH MORE TREES

M.O.E.: Purveyers and Apologists of Human Misery


There was sampling in the creek during the summer of 2015. That has not been released to us the public as yet. I am also doubtful that it has gone to TAG yet. RAC which includes the M.O.E. and Chemtura obviously have had it for a long while.

The Ontario M.O.E.C.C. (M.O.E. plus Climate Change) have ordered/requested/begged Chemtura to do more sampling of sediments and floodplain soils this fall. The M.O.E. then want that data used to produce a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA). If they really want to punish us and waste more taxpayers money they'll bring back their pony-tailed, number crunching/manipulating contaminant risk specialist who believes that a detonated atomic bomb is not a hazard unless human beings are within range of it.

We have creek data from 1995-96, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 although the latter is being kept hidden from us. The data we have indicate that sediments are exceeded for DDT dramatically and also by Dioxins/Furans. Mercury and P.C.B. data strangely have not been made available to us. Fish residues have also been tested in 2014 along with a May 2016 report advising us as to the process behind the testing. That report indicates that fish in the Canagagigue which are available for consumption by both humans and wildlife (mink, muskrat, raccoon, coyote, blue heron, hawk etc.), are contaminated with Dioxins/Furans, P.C.B.s, DDT and Mercury. Again the Dioxin and DDT contamination alone far exceeds the CCME (Cnd. Council of Ministers of the Environment) Guidelines. Mercury and P.C.B.s exceed the Guidelines in some of the fish. These Guidelines are referred to as Tissue Residue Guidelines (TRG).

So with recent data proving that the sediments are highly contaminated and unsurprisingly so are the fish then why are we doing more studies and why are we doing a HHRA (Human Health Risk Assessment)? There is but one reason. Doing those studies and mathematically and statistically "proving" a low risk is much cheaper for Chemtura than actually remediating the Canagagigue Creek from their plant all the way down (5 miles) to the Grand River. And afterall, money is more important to a corporation than human life and health and especially more important than a few dead, malformed or sterile "critters" in and around the creek.

ONT. MIN. OF ENVIRONMENT - ARE THEY DECEIVING US AGAIN?

At the May 12/16 TAG meeting we were presented with a report titled "Eating Fish from Canagagigue Creek". I believe that that report is a crock of contaminated, putrid fish.

Some of the obvious nonsense included the exquisitely careful way that the contaminant testing was done. By their own admission, parts of the fish that contained the highest levels of contaminants were not tested. This included fatty areas, internal organs such as the liver and the skin itself. Then there are the slightly more subtle games. For example the contaminants we are testing for bioaccumulate. They move up the food chain from prey to predator. With that we are breezily informed that Northern Pike which is the top predator in the creek is not targeted for organic contaminant analyses. These would include of course P.C.B.s, Dioxins and DDT all of which bioaccumulate and biomagnify as they go up the food chain. Hence ignoring both the top predator in the creek for testing as well as not mentioning mamalian predators outside the creek who eat fish, clams etc. grossly minimizes the negative effects upon wildlife dependant upon the creek.

Basically this entire report from the M.O.E. is a scam. It is minimizing the toxic effects from Chemtura and possibly others discharges into the environment by focusing solely on human consumption. Even that is minimized by looking at tissue residues individually. The big four would most likely be Dioxins/Furans, P.C.B.s, Mercury and DDT. We are advised that there were no advisories due to DDT presence. That makes exactly zero sense as huge DDT sediment results in the Creek are what started this whole process in the first place. Therefore the human consumption guidelines are based upon studies of one chemical alone in the tissues of fish. White suckers have guidelines exceeded by three contaminants and yet these are the individual guidelines for each contaminant. No one knows if the three together (P.C.B.s, Dioxins & Mercury) have synergistic effects such that Zero meals per month is more appropriate than the pronounced eight to sixteen per month. Would you eat any meals per month of a fish with those contaminants in it?

DDT was eventually banned because of its' effect on wildlife reproduction. It apparently had little effect on human beings at the concentrations it was in birds of prey such as eagles and hawks. I do not know how detrimental it is to raccoons, foxes, coyotes, mink, muskrats etc..

This report may not be full of lies but it sure as hell is full of deception and deceit. We are told that the Canagagigue meal guidelines are comparable to other waterbodies in Ontario. We are not advised that B.C. and Ontario have the highest Dioxin concentrations in Canada.

We are told that 8 meals per month and above is defined as "unrestricted". That is blatant M.O.E. bullshit. By the definition of the word "resticted" any advisory not to eat more than ten, twelve, fourteen or fifty meals per month is a RESTRICTION.

The eight meal guideline for DDT is 11,732 ng/g for HUMAN BEINGS. The concentrations in fish tissue that is part of the "Canadian Tissue Residue Guidelines for the Protection of Wildlife consumers of Aquatic Biota" is 14 ng/g. What the hell! Thank you for not telling us this Ontario M.O.E..

This report is a stinker of the quality that we in Elmira have come to expect from either Chemtura or the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Of course our local politicians gobble up this bullshit from those two parties and ask for more.

ALGAL BLOOM IN CONESTOGO LAKE

Last Wednesday's (Aug. 31) Waterloo Region Record carried the following story titled "No swimming at Conestogo Lake due to algae". The algae are of the blue-green variety and can be toxic either by ingestion or even by skin contact. The Grand River Conservation Authority issued the warning including signage at the park gatehouse and beach. The actual toxin is called microcystin and is released into the water when the algae die. The same problem occurred a couple of weeks ago at Belwood lake outside Fergus resulting in water restrictions for about a week.

The Record article refers to algal blooms as being a natural phenomenon that occur during hot, dry weather. Fair enough however they are also the result of human activities and interference in the natural environment. First of all free flowing water especially if shaded by trees and bushes doesn't warm up as much as water dammed and spread out over a large area receiving the full effect of the sun's rays. Secondly these blooms are also assisted by additions to the natural environment such as phosphorous and nitrogen. These present in the water courtesy of agricultural fertilizing of the nearby land promote the growth of algae. Last but not least I suspect would be the addition of septic tank runoff. That too would assist the growth of algae. Keep in mind that the need for a dam in the first place is for flood control as humanity have first cut the trees and drained the wetlands that were the natural flood controls in the first place. Maybe not so natural afterall.

HISTORY REPEAT - ANOTHER CRAPPY HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HHRA) AT CHEMTURA (UNIROYAL)

Here we go again. Apparently the more obvious the need for remediation the more "studies" and "sampling" required. What exactly are the Ontario M.O.E.C.C. trying to do here? Are they hoping to coordinate a sampling round a week or two after the worst storm of the decade scours the creek bottom and flushes more tons of contaminants downstream into the Grand River? We now have some data from 1995-96, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. That said the M.O.E. are still sitting on the 2015 data and refusing to share it. The evidence is overwhelming that more, much more, needs to be done. Instead the M.O.E. are "requesting" another sediment and soil investigation this year "to support a screening level human health risk assessment (HHRA)". What the hell is a "screening level" HHRA? Is that bureaucratese for a HHRA with holes in it big enough to drive a truck through?

The other possibility long practiced by the M.O.E. and other government agencies is to hide the forest with the trees. In other words as bad as 1995-96 and 2012 were hopefully more data at different times of the year, different locations (even slightly), different sampling methods and or simply more data will confuse the picture. Right now with over a quarter of a century of reading technical reports I find simultaneously examining multiple reports to be much more difficult than simply looking at one report at a time. Also the M.O.E. and Chemtura are masters at cherrypicking the results that they want. The more reports, studies, data and sampling the more likely you will find something, somewhere to back up your do little, spend less remediation philosophy.

Approximately thirteen years ago Chemtura, O.K. Crompton or whatever their name was that year, did both an HHRA as well as an ERA or Ecological Risk Assessment for their own property. I would describe both of them as garbage on paper. Dr. Henry Regier and I led the charge with questions and comments that were poorly if at all answered. Dr. Regier with decades of scientific expertise went right to the heart of the Risk Assessment process and found it wanting. He personally went to the M.O.E. offices to interview and discuss the "science" behind Risk Assessments. Dr. Regier has advised that in his opinion the M.O.E. brains behind the HHRA and ERA were out of their depth and had only a basic, peripheral understanding of what they were doing.

The final synopsis of a years long waste of time process for the HHRA was that the Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura site was only a hazard to the occasional trespasser (me??) and not to employees or the general public. Regarding the ERA the site was only a hazard to insectivorious shrews on the site who dug down into the earth. Seriously that's what those twits found. Even the M.O.E. have recently expressed skepticism regarding the last go round with Risk Assessments. Dear God save us all from client driven, pony-tailed PhDs who have never found a toxic chemical without some redeeming social values. Meanwhile the M.O.E. are now conceding that diluted contaminants from the Chemtura site miles downstream have the potential to adversely affect recreational users in the creek. What about 24/7 life in the creek? Don't they count anymore? Amphibians, reptiles, insects, the benthic community, fish, and predators all the way up the food chain don't seem to be of concern. My expectation is that if necessary the M.O.E. will continue having Chemtura "study" the environmental disaster until the day the company finally and at long last departs for greener pastures with blunter politicians who aren't trying simultaneously to suck and blow. Corporations are searching for money making opportunities with the least amount of government interference possible. Even so called "democracies" are pathetic at holding corporations accountable. Trade agreements such as NAFTA, TPP etc. exacerbate the shift in power towards money, profits and corporations at the expense of human beings.

M.O.E. REVERSE THEMSELVES, CHEMTURA CONTINUE THE LONG STALL

Well the last nonsense we heard from Teri Buhlman of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment was that the Canagagigue Creek did not represent any threat to human or wildlife. If you will recall this includes her refusal to have the M.O.E. involved in warning signage at three areas along the creek regarding toxic contaminants in the fish. You may also recall her presentation in which we were advised that while yes the fish are contaminated the actual concentrations are less if you assiduously avoid the organs (especially liver), fatty areas and the skin. I recall at the time wondering here in the Advocate as to what language the warning signs should be in in order to ensure that foxes, raccoons, coyotes, hawks and blue herons etc. avoid eating specific parts of the fish that they catch.

Yesterday we received the TAG package including Agenda for next Wednesday in Woolwich Council Chambers. This package included communications back and forth between the M.O.E. and Chemtura regarding more testing in the creek as well as a "screeing level" Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA). While this somewhat indicates a turnaround on the part of the M.O.E. only Pollyanna could believe that this indicates a sincere about face by the M.O.E.. It would seem clear to me that Dr. Dick Jackson's firm stance has set the Ministry back on their heels.

Speaking of Dr. Jackson is he still with us? Chemtura and the M.O.E. whined for help from the Township due to huge breakthroughs by CPAC regarding the 2028 deadline failure (May 2012 Resolution) as well as with the off-site east side contamination of the Stroh farm. Furthermore CPAC and SWAT in conjunction with MTE Inc. determined that the Stroh Drain was collecting both ground and surface water and discharging it further east and south back into the Canagagigue Creek. This is likely but one more source over the decades of ongoing contamination to the downstream creek. Sandy and Mark B. hired Dr. Jackson to head up the new "cringeworthy" public consultation bodies namely RAC and TAG. To our pleasant surprise and to Chemtura's horror, Dr. Jackson is the real deal. He's given Terri Buhlman of the M.O.E. fits and made CPAC look like the ladies and gentlemen they always have been. Dr. Jackson's continued presence will be a huge test for Sandy & Mark. If for any reason he departs then Chemtura and the M.O.E. will once again be publicly seen to be pulling the Township's strings.

The M.O.E. want Chemtura to complete further sediment and floodplain sampling this fall with an analytical report due by October 28/16. Chemtura and their consultants (GHD-formerly CRA) don't want to do the sampling till spring with a "screening level" HHRA completed a year from now. Chemtura argue that they need to do parts of the HHRA first, setting criteria, determining various receptor pathways and other risk factors BEFORE doing their sampling. In my mind besides their usual stalling they are merely trying to set up their targets ahead of time in order to sample in a fashion to avoid exceeding criterias or in order to minimize the likelihood of boxing themselves in and being ordered to do expensive remediation. Risk Assessments are a game and both the M.O.E. and Chemtura know it.

Even if Chemtura follow the M.O.E.'s requests the whole thing is rigged. The M.O.E. have already publicly made it clear that they don't want to order Chemtura to do remediation. This whole thing is a setup to once again make the public think that Chemtura & the M.O.E. are open to public input and comment. They are not. It is and always has been a closed shop with the public (most) being the only honest party.

COUNCILLOR SCOTT HAHN BACK TO PROVINCIAL OFFENCES COURT ON SEPTEMBER 26/16 9 am.

Both the Waterloo Region Record (Local Section) and the Woolwich Observer carry articles today regarding yesterday's visit to Provincial Court in downtown Kitchener (77 Queen St.). The Observer story is titled "Scott Hahn case adjourned as Crown decides if action warranted". The Record's brief story is titled "Case against Woolwich councillor adjourned to Sept. 26".

The key to Mr. Hahn's case is the Forensic Audit produced by Froese Forensic Partners and paid for by Woolwich Township. The Audit Committee (MECAC) who are a bunch of political appointees courtesy of multiple Region of Waterloo townships and cities determined that it was necessary to order this Forensic audit based upon Scott Hahn's initial ridiculously bad Financial Statement as well as based upon conflicting or unclear facts which surfaced at the MECAC hearings. How difficult or technical was this decision? In my opinion any honest, unbiased Woolwich citizen who invested fifteen minutes of their time to get informed would have made the same decision.

Froese Forensic Partners listed a number of apparent contraventions of the Municpal Elections act (MEA) in their report for BOTH of Mr. Hahn's Financial Statements. His first Statement and by the way only legal Statement claimed $258 expenses above and beyond his $100 deposit. His second Amended and illegally accepted and commissioned Financial Statement stated that he had $3,200 in expenses. This second Amended Statement was improperly and illegally accepted by Woolwich Township on May 11, 2015 approximately two months after the legal deadline. Talk about the blind leading the blind. In the words of Justice Quinn of Superior Court (St. Catherines) "Ignorance of the Act is not a defence; neither is relying on the ignorance of others.".

In regards to the Crown advising the Judge yesterday that he was missing vital information I believe that to be correct. That said I believe that part of that information simply was not sent from Superior Court (Intake Court) up to Provincial Offences Court as it should have been. That at least is what I was advised weeks ago when I filed the Affidavit of Service with Provincial Offences Court. The lady behind the counter advised me then that she had as yet not received the Summons and Information (charges) from Superior Court. Weird.

Regardless I provided extra copies of what I had yesterday to the Crown including for a second time the Forensic Audit produced by Froese Forensic Partners. Yesterday afternoon I then provided 21 more pages to the Crown including Scott's two Financial Statements. Finally I advised where on line all these documents were publicly available.

While I respect that the Crown needs to do his due diligence I can unequivocally advise that our judicial system to date has not inspired confidence in me or other well informed Woolwich residents in regards to enforcing the Municipal Elections Act.