BACK TO THE CREEK

On page 19 of the 2017 Canagagigue Creek report which I am currently studying the text describes the number of exceedances in "Reach 3: St and Downstream of Station 20". This Station from previous reports is located a few hundred metres downstream of the southern end of the Chemtura/Lanxess property. The text states that there were 24 exceedances above criteria for 2,4-DDT + 4,4-DDT in Soil samples. By my count in Table 7 there were 30 exceedances. Unmentioned yet again are the total DDD exceedances of which I counted 27 in Table 7. My count for 2,4-DDE + 4,4 DDE equaled the count of 36 exceedances stated in the text although my count included 4 Duplicate samples.

For Dioxin and Furan in the Soil samples the text says there were 27 exceedances of the maximum allowable criteria. My count in Table 7 came up with the same number although there were 4 Duplicates in addition to the 27.

For Sediment samples at this same general location (Reach 3 & Station 20) my count in Table 8 for 2,4-DDT + 4,4 DDT (ND0.5) was 28 exceedances versus the text claiming 39 exceedances. Well that's peculiar! The text stated there were 30 exceedances for 2,4-DDE + 4,4 DDE and my count was the same in Table 7. 2,4-DDD + 4,4-DDD which again wasn't mentioned in the text was 40 exceedances of the criteria. Wow!

For Dioxins and Furans in Sediment at this location the text stated that there were 26 exceedances. My count in Table 8 indicated a whopping 57 exceedances! What the hell! This is why citizens who are willing to do the work and inform themselves need to be the ones asking the questions at public meetings not just a few handpicked ones whether toadies to Sandy Shantz or Chemtura/Lanxess. There is yet another group asking questions and they are the honest, hardworking citizens who however do not have 30 years of experience reading hundreds of reports and being misinformed by the company or their consultants on the facts.

The next location is called Reach 4 and is the Chemtura/Lanxess site itself. The text and my reading of Table 9 states that there were 14 exceedances for 2,4-DDD + 4,4-DDD in the Soil samples. This time they actually presented the results for DDD in the text. The text stated that there were 15 exceedances for 2,4-DDE + 4,4-DDE whereas my count showed 16 exceedances. Both my count and the text agreed upon 13 exceedances for 2,4-DDT + 4,4-DDT.

For Dioxins and Furans in the Soil at this location my count and the count stated in the text of 27 exceedances were extremely close. My count from Table 9 included 1 Duplicate sample.

Further examination of this report and its' incredible number of exceedances of criteria will be forthcoming.

FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST WOOLWICH TOWNSHIP'S STONEWALLING

Why bother many people would ask? We all know that "you can't fight city hall". Well actually you can and many people have done so, including myself. We have had varying degrees of success in so doing. Most of the battles have been private, especially the legal ones. This is unfortunate but often the municipality or other group, say the Waterloo Regional Police, are willing to settle provided there is a confidentiality clause included in the settlement. A couple of years back I took Woolwich to the Ontario Ombudsman and won. The Township (read Council) had gotten a little out of control with their in camera (private) meetings. Andre Marin, the Ontario Ombudsman set them straight and they were required to bring up his decision at a public Council meeting. One could also put my and others straightening out half of Woolwich Council on their pathetic Election Expense documents into the category of "fighting" city hall. Not one of these cases involved an "accidental" overstating of election expenses. They were all "accidental" understating of expenses with one exception and that was Councillor Bauman's failure to file multiple Financial Statements after he had been acclaimed to Council.

The current case is in regards to Council's penchant for secrecy. Especially secrecy of information going public which might indicate that Councils both past and present have made very poor decisions. I am of course referring to the Bolender Park Landfill. Multiple Councils including current members of this one such as Mark Bauman, Sandy Shantz and Murray Martin have been given reports about explosive methane levels in and around the former Landfill over the last thirty years. Those councillors have indicated at public council meetings that they HAVE NOT READ those reports.

I have read all those that I have obtained and I am appalled at this and other Councils' inactions. I have done my own research on methane gas in municipal (& industrial) landfills and have presented both that as well as the information from the Township's own consultants (Conestoga Rovers) to Council multiple times since last fall. Council have finally made a couple of very modest moves in the right direction. They have also stonewalled my formal, polite written requests for further information. Last November 16 (2017) I sent them 40 typewritten questions all directly relevant to methane health and safety issues as well as taxpayer costs and expenses regarding construction of the old methane collection system, gas probes for monitoring purposes and more. Over three months later they sent me their response. It consisted of excuses as to why they would not answer 38 of my 40 questions as well as one answer which seems reasonable and a second answer which was ridiculous and has now been proven ridiculous with the reluctant assistance of one of the councillors (ie. the ditch filled with non-existent water which miraculously prevented lateral eastward migration of methane).

Elected councillors as a group seem to think that once elected they are no longer accountable (until the next election) to their constituents. They are wrong. The Bolender Park Landfill is an ongoing expense to Woolwich taxpayers the least of which are ongoing, poor quality consultant's reports. The most recent that I have are dated 2015 and 2016 although I expect there will also be another report soon for the work done in 2017. I and my fellow Woolwich residents are paying for those reports. Then there is the safety issue which has not remotely been adequately addressed. There are two currently operating businesses at risk namely #86 Auto Recycling and Elmira Pet Foods. There are also numerous residential homes (and a public park) located on the borders of the Landfill. Besides getting a new Methane Gas Collection System up and running they also need to install and regularly monitor many more gas monitors on the north, east and south sides of the landfill in order to accurately know the truth about methane presence off-site which they and their consultants are merely guessing at currently.

My complaint to the Municipal Ombudsman (Agree Inc.) relates to the very black and white matter of 40 questions to Staff and Council not being answered almost five months later. It is a very simple and straightforward complaint. Either Agree Inc. are the real deal or similar to MECAC (municipal election compliance audit committee) they are not. I have gone through Woolwich's internal complaints procedure without honest resolution by them. Now it is Agree Inc.s turn.

DDT & METABOLYTES SERIOUSLY UNDERSTATED IN SEDIMENTS OF CANAGAGIGUE CREEK

My reading of the large 2017 Sediment/Soil & Floodplain 2017 Canagagigue Creek report continues. I am going line by line through the eleven Tables (hundreds of pages). I have found that the Tables dealing with Sediments (versus Soils) appear to be the most egregious in terms of page after page of nothing but Non-Detects. This is egregious because the Method Detection Limit (MDL) is from 20 to 40 parts per billion (ppb) whereas the Table 8 criteria for 2,4 + 4,4 DDT is 7 ppb, DDD is 8 ppb and DDE is 5 ppb. Therefore any hits of total DDT from below the criteria (7) up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. will show up as ND (.02). Similarly total DDD hits will not register from one up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. despite the Table 8 criteria stating that 8 ppb. is the maximum allowable. This is a farce! Finally total DDE detections/hits from one up to 20, 30 or 40 ppb. depending on the MDL of that particular sample also will not register as detections but only show up in the Tables as either ND (.02) or ND (.03) or ND (.04) all in parts per million (ppm). This is the same as 20, 30 or 40 parts per billion (ppb.). This folks is how you minimize and downgrade the overall extent of your client's pollution without out and out lying. You simply hide it in the numbers.

Of course from 1991 until late 2014 informed citizens such as myself, Dr. Henry Regier, Richard Clausi, Esther Thur and others plus Ron Campbell, Graham Chevreau, Dr. Dan Holt, David Marks and more could confront Conestoga Rovers and Uniroyal/Crompton, Chemtura etc. at public meetings and demand that they explain these anomalies. This often would take back and forth discussion and every now and then it would turn out that the polluter and their apologists actually had some logical reason for whatever we had found peculiar. Many times they did not at which point they raised red herrings and attempted to deflect and distract. With this report and the current murder of public consultation here in Woolwich Township, I and others are left with no choice but to believe that Lanxess and their consultant GHD are simply deceptive filth of the highest order. Afterall we can't ask them polite questions as we did until October 2014. Lest we forget Sandy and Council, even Jeff Merriman (Chemtura) verbally confirmed at that October 2014 penultimate public meeting that I was being polite and respectful but that he simply disapproved of what he called an interrogation. When he did so I told him that I was trying to be polite about it and he agreed in front of everyone that I was.

I have gone through pages 17 to the top 1/4 of page 19 and attempted to verify the number of exceedances stated in the text for "Semi-Volatiles" (ie.DDD, DDE & DDT) in the Soil and Sediments at various locations in the creek. I have also attempted to confirm Dioxin and Furan readings in the Tables with what the text says. There are a number of exceedances in the text with which my count in the Tables is very close. However I have also found three counts of mine which were higher than those of GHD. One of mine was lower. Even more interesting is that the text for some peculiar reason rarely mentions exceedances of the criteria for 2,4 + 4,4 DDD. They range from a low of four Soil exceedances at the Northfield Dr. sampling locations to 30 Soil exceedances and 32 Sediment exceedances at the New Jerusalem Rd and Station 21 locations. Intentional omission or not this greatly reduces the perception of the number of criteria exceedances in the creek by this Uniroyal Chemical produced herbicide. I will report further unmentioned exceedances in the text as I find them.

TOUGH SLEDDING READING THE NEW (2017) CREEK REPORT

I've been reading hydrogeological reports for twenty-seven years now, starting with a 1991 Varnicolor Chemical HydroG report written by Golder Associates. I still remember the comment written by hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland on the inside cover of that report after I complained to him of inconsistencies and illogical conclusions or statements. He wrote "Remember who was paying their (Golder) bills.".

Since that time besides likely literally hundreds of reports on Varnicolor, Uniroyal & followup companies, Safety-Kleen, Deilcraft, Sunar, C.G.T., Ciba-Geigy, Northstar Aerospace and many more, I've also read, dissected, questioned and debated with consultants on reports dealing with Hydrology or surface water. I've read and reread all the Canagagigue Creek Reports from 2012 through to this present one I'm working on. Ditto for the 1995-97 Jaagumagi & Bedard Ministry of Environment (M.O.E.) detailed study of the Canagagigue Creek. I've attended all the presentations by the M.O.E. over the years on the creek including one done by an old friend (now a Doctor as in PHd!) I met at Pat Potter's down in Dunnville decades ago. Hi Rachel!

So why is this current one giving me trouble? Why am I struggling with reading it and putting everything together? There may be a number of reasons. Firstly this report is far larger and more detailed than particularly the ones about the creek since 2012. There are far more samples taken plus a few more locations sampled albeit nowhere near enough. The Figures presented are not particularly user friendly and reading the location names on the coloured maps is not easy. Imagine trying to read those same Figures God help us if they were photocopies of coloured maps. Therefore thanks again for the hard copy even though it's difficult enough. The Tables are extensive with Table 3 being 14 pages long, Table 4 being 18 pages long, Table 5 being 62 pages long and Table 6 being 120 pages long. The next five Tables of soil and sediment results vary from a low of six pages to a high of 64 pages.

As is my usual practice I do NOT simply read either the Executive Summary alone or even the text on its' own. In fact the text in this Report is a quite skinny 23 pages only. Far too many reports by Uniroyal Chemical and its' successors' consultants and possibly some others have gilded the lily and cherry picked data from their own reports in order to come up with Conclusions that are far too rosy and gentle on their clients who are afterall paying for their reports. That in fact is the huge sham of allegedly professional consultants who would like both repeat business from their current clients as well as positive references given by them to other future clients. It is our governments who make the rules and pass the laws which grotesquely favour these incestuous and self-serving relationships. The key is self-serving relationships favouring polluters versus a system that should be favouring the public interest only.

Another part of the problem is reconciling the text with the hundreds of pages of Tables. It is very difficult when finally in hindsight you realize that the text strongly appears to be quoting repeatedly the wrong criteria known as Table 8 (M.O.E.) for DDT and its' metabolytes DDD and DDE. The criteria for soils are less stringent than the criteria for sediments in the bottom of the creek. This is likely due to the fact that there are lifeforms which not only reside in the sediments (benthic community) but also that are consumed on a daily basis by higher lifeforms such as fish, frogs, etc.. Therefore the soils criteria for example in Tables 3 & 5 in this Report are .05, .05 and .078 ppm. respectively for DDD, DDE and DDT. However for sediments the criteria in this Report (Tables 4 & 6 etc.) are more stringent namely .008, .005 and .007 ppm. respectively for DDD, DDE and DDT. Unfortunately on pages 17-20 in the text the values quoted as being for sediments are in fact the soil criteria of .05, .05 and .078. Again to further complicate reconciling the text to the Tables is the fact that our idiot Mayor relied upon the grossly biased word of Chemtura and the Ontario M.O.E. to remove myself, CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) and the general public from being able to question either Chemtura/Lanxess or their consultants GHD, the authors of this report at public RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) and TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meetings in which Chemtura and GHD might be present. Well done politicians in successfully removing the very few (if only?) citizens who will read this report cover to cover from being able to confirm errors and flaws in the report. These errors may turn out to have some sort of explanation or not, we will never know for certain with the current "cringeworthy" (Pat Merlihan's word) process in place while at the same time the company, the M.O.E. and the politicians crow about their pretend public consultation.

THE SHAME OF OUR HOMEGROWN ENVIRONMENTAL DEVASTATION

I continue reading the "2017 Canagagigue Creek Sediment and Floodplain Soil Investigation" of March 19, 2018. I am appalled. The results both in and around the creek everywhere it's been sampled and analysed are horrific. This is but for TWO chemicals namely DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) and Dioxins (2,3,7,8 TetrachloroDibenzo-p-dioxin is the most infamous of the group). Mercury, PCBs, PAHs are not measured in this report along with Endosulfan, Endrin, Aldrin and all the other Uniroyal Chemical signature chemicals they produced while dumping their wastes into the creek intentionally.

A week ago I suggested here that I had found some typos in GHD's text of this report. As of now I'm going to rescind the particular one stating that DDT had been incorrectly substituted for DDD, an isomer of DDT. That is the good news. The bad news is the Method Detection Limits (MDL) for DDT and its' isomers namely DDD and DDE. For a detailed definition of "isomers" please check either Google or a dictionary. These Detection Limits essentially are the lowest concentrations that the lab are able to confidently measure accurately. In the report they are generally at .02 ug/g or parts per million (ppm). This translates to 20 parts per billion (ppb) and is astoundingly high when one realizes that the vast majority of chemicals can be accurately measured in labs at .5 ppb . Also many chemicals such as NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine) are routinely measured in parts per trillion (ppt) which is a thousand times smaller. Then of course we have Dioxins that are routinely successfully measured in parts per quadrillion (ppq) which is a thousand times smaller than parts per trillion (ppt) and a million times smaller than parts per billion (ppb).

The criteria for DDD, DDE and DDT in creek sediments are respectively .008, .005 and .007 ug/g (ppm) or 8,5 and 7 parts per billion. With a MDL of 20 ppb you therefore are going to get a ton of exceedances of the criteria showing up as ND (.02) which is Non-Detect at a detection limit of 20 parts per billion (ppb). This is exactly what shows up throughout the Figures 6.1 to 6.11 . Maybe this lack of precision is unavoidable but after thirty years of watching consultants minimize problems through creative science I am skeptical. Also a very quick look at past reports shows me that DDT has been measured at lower concentrations than 20 ppb. namely between 1 and 10 ppb. (parts per billion). This STINKS in this report and certainly all the ND (.02 ppm) gives a much better visual impression of the overall appalling contamination in the creek than it should.

Going through the Figures 6.1 to 6.11 I have not as yet seen any Dioxins measured in TEQ (Toxic Equivalency as pg/g or parts per trillion (ppt)) that were found to be Non-Detect. That I find astounding. Dioxins appear to be everywhere whether above or below the safety criteria being used. Dioxins are not a compound that can be seen as not a problem at any concentration. In other words they are a non-Threshold compound that can be damaging at any concentration depending upon the receptor and the individual organism within the species involved. I repeat this report is an abomination and for the Ontario Ministry of Environment to be only now publicly pushing Lanxess (formerly Uniroyal) for a cleanup is criminal. Lifeforms including human beings are and have been negatively affected for decades because of this gross contamination of the natural environment and hiding behind either a lack of budget funding or a lack of scientific, absolute proof is a cop-out. Next they are going to go through a mathematically complicated series of exercises called a Human Health Risk Assessment. Maybe also an Ecological Risk Assessment for wildlife will occur. Regardless its' purpose is to razzledazzle the few remaining citizens who have kept up with this years long exercise and to further artificially minimize the reality of health risks to animals and humans. Shame on everyone involved in this coverup.

EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? YOU DECIDE

So a couple of weeks back or more I invited my Ward 1 councillor, Patrick Merlihan on a little environmental field trip. It was a very short field trip as the former Bolender Park Landfill is across Arthur St. from the Woolwich Observer which is co-owned by Patrick. We went to the back end of the Landfill which we accessed via High St.. Patrick was there at my invitation as his constituent and I have since confessed to Frank Rattasid whose property we were on. Frank as always was very gracious and understanding of the circumstances involved.

We (or at least I was) were there specifically to debunk false statements made by Conestoga Rovers (CRA) in their various technical reports regarding methane migration from the Landfill. The specific nonsense I was debunking had to do with alleged water, either standing or flowing, in a ditch that lies in a north-south configuration parallel with Mr. Rattasid's (ie. the former Landfill) property. Overall I found Patrick's attitude to be one of superiority, arrogance and disrespect. That has been both his and his brother Joe's attitudes towards me for many years despite my best efforts to get along with both of them. I do grant that I have on rare occasions responded here unkindly towards them when I've gotten fed up with their stupidity and disrespect. That said I do respect and read their newspaper every week, Patrick did agree to attend at my invitation and he did graciously offer me a ride afterwards.

The alleged significance of the water in the ditch is the claim by CRA that this water prevents lateral or horizontal migration of methane eastwards towards the residential homes on High St. and possibly the closest George St. homes. We had had a major rainfall approximately eight days earlier and the ditch involved is shaded by the mature trees present. It was bone dry and I walked in the bottom of it from top to bottom in my running shoes. CRA also claimed that the ditch was three metres deep. With Patrick walking along the top of the ditch and me in the bottom we stopped several times and his feet were perhaps at the level of my waist or just slightly higher. So much for three metres deep.

I showed Patrick a neighbour`s composter sitting in the bottom of the ditch. Keep in mind that over the decades the neighbours have incorrectly assumed that this ditch and nearby trail over towards the Trans Canada Trail (Kissing Bridge Trail) were on Woolwich Township land. No long time neighbour is going to locate his composter in the bottom of a ditch that has standing or running water in it. More significantly I showed Patrick a water access or cleanout pipe, clearly marked as such, again right in the bottom of the ditch. When I asked if he thought that Woolwich Public Works were so incompetent that they would locate an access to a drinking water pipe in an area regularly submerged by surface water; his response was a little less than diplomatic. This water pipe by the way is the illegally located pipe supplying water to Elmira Pet products. Illegally located I might add by Woolwich Township.

The icing on the cake was the appearance of a neighbour whose backyard bordered Mr. Rattasid`s property. This neighbour was very friendly, communicative and helpful. He advised both Patrick and I that he had been living there since 1972 and he had NEVER seen water standing or flowing in that ditch. While Patrick had been very dismissive (and disrespectful) of all the evidence up to that point, he finally changed his tune. This neighbour by the way is the third local resident whom both Patrick and I know who has stated that they have never seen water in that ditch!

So you readers can decide for yourselves whether or not Conestoga Rovers were indulging in psuedo or junk science with their claims of water in the ditch preventing methane flow eastwards. Also when challenged to produce any scientific literature to back up claims of water stopping lateral methane migration, the Township made a half hearted attempt to do so. It was pathetic. My opinion of course is expressed in yesterday`s posting.

WILLFULLY BLIND WOOLWICH- IF THEY CAN"T SEE METHANE THEN IT"S NOT THERE

If there's one thing I've learned over close to thirty years of butting heads with various politicians, authority figures and others supposedly working in the public interest; it is that it is rarely a case of honest disagreements or differences in opinions on matters. It is a case primarily of selfish individuals and groups who put their interests, usually money, ahead of the public good. They of course are not so crass, brave or honest to come right out and say so. Oh no they much prefer to wear the mantle of authority and sober second thought if politicians and if profit oriented corporations then they carefully hide behind both the politicians and their tame, client driven consultants. This is our system. It gives grossly undue credibility to money and power and generally speaking they exploit it unmercifully.

I have spent serious time and effort informing myself of the facts surrounding the history of methane problems in the Bolender Park Landfill here in Elmira, Ontario. I have not simply asked the opinions of local residents or any other persons who might have an axe to grind against either landfills in general or against Woolwich Township and council. Instead I have done that as well as read the many technical reports produced by Conestoga Rovers (GHD) on behalf of their client, Woolwich Township. I have also done on-line research digging up both old and newer technical information regarding methane production in municipal landfills. Both the references to these articles and their contents have been made available to both Woolwich staff and councillors. There are a plethora of articles from consulting companies, university researchers and government agencies both Canadian and American. All these articles paint a very unpleasant picture when one learns what our authorities should have been doing versus what they have done. Could this be the major reason for Woolwich's bizarre, head in the sand behaviour?

Last week both a Woolwich staffer and a Woolwich Councillor decided to put their bias, dogmatism, credibility and frankly their honesty on the line. I have called them in writing on their nonsense and they have not replied. Undoubtedly both of them have very good reasons, in their minds, as to why they are being so unreasonable, willfully blind and simply bullheaded. Could their reasons be even slightly somehow in the public interest? Well I suppose that occasionally either politicians or others among us have believed that lying to citizens was somehow in the citizens' best interests. Maybe those authority figures have even on occasion been correct in their beliefs that lying to us was for our own good. Maybe this is one of those extremely few occasions. Or in the alternative maybe lying has simply become such an ingrained habit in order to deflect criticism that they no longer think twice about their standard operating practices and always reliable fall back method of handling problems.