BRANTFORD, HAMILTON, KITCHENER, ELMIRA - DISCLOSURE NEITHER FULL NOR TIMELY

Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record carried a story titled "Brantford reports hydrocarbon spill into creek". The creek discharges into the Grand River however it does so downriver of Brantford's intake pipe which provides their raw drinking water. While it appears that various authorities such as the GRCA and MECP (MOE) as well as downriver municipalities were informed promptly apparently the public had to wait a week before they were so advised. While that is not good nevertheless it pales in comparison to Sewergate in Hamilton which refers to the raw sewage discharging through a malfunctioning gate that ended up in the Hamilton Harbour area. That ongoing spill wasn't reported to the public for nearly a year after it was first discovered. Similarly there have been incidents of spills in Elmira that were never reported to anybody or equally bad were actually denied by the guilty party when the authorities came knocking on their doors.

The source of the hydrocarbon spill is suspected to be a former Stelco Fasteners manufacturing plant which is currently undergoing remediation. Apparently a pile of contaminated soil was not adequately covered and likely rainfall had mobilized the hydrocarbon contaminants which flowed into the nearby creek. Clearly there was a failure in regards to best remediation practices, especially with a creek so close nearby.

There had been another spill noted a week earlier in which a red substance was noticed in the Mohawk Canal. It was believed that a car involved in an accident ended up in the canal. My guess would be that the red substance was power steering fluid.

Overall media coverage of these events is important as people realize that eventually so called "contained" substances will end up in the natural environment. Ongoing media coverage greatly assists in raising awareness among us that constant vigilance is required to nip these small but ongoing spills in the bud.

I RATE YESTERDAY'S WEBINAR AS OVERALL IMPRESSIVE

Last evening's Webinar on Risk Assessments was worthwhile as I and TAG members learned about some of the inputs, intents, calculations (formulas) and more that make up proper Risk Assessments. At the end we were reminded of the intense necessity to have an accurate Conceptual Site Model (CSM) and an accurate Conceptual Exposure Model(CEM). Without either one the entire Risk Assessment is called into question (i.e. doomed/a sham/ etc.) We were also advised that Risk Assessment's need to be defensible in order to have any credibility.

We were again focused on the CSM, followed by the Risk Paradigm, and then the Protection Goals, the Framework and finally the Toxicity of Chemicals. The Risk Paradigm is simply three overlapping circles of Contaminants, Receptors and Exposure Pathways. Where the three circles overlap is the Risk involved by the Contaminants following the Exposure Pathway and affecting the Receptors. The Protection Goals vary dramatically between Human and Ecological Risk Assessments. With human beings it's all about protecting the most vulnerable such as the elderly, children, pregnant women and mothers etc. With Ecological Risk Assessments it's about protecting the populations of wildlife not the indiviual members. With invertebrates and plants it's about protecting communities not populations or individuals. The one exception is listed species at risk which receive greater protections. The Toxicity of Chemicals basically discussed the difference between Threshold and non-Threshold chemicals. The dose is the poison for many chemicals but nor for carcinogenic, mutagenic chemicals etc. Non-Threshold chemicals literally can cause adverse affects at any concentration or dose.

I was impressed to learn that many of the numbers plugged into the various equations are provided by Health Canada. In other words all the various parameters in the various equations are not the purvue of the polluter and his consultants. Certain things like the amounts of soil ingested by children, the fraction of time receptors are exposed, bioavailability of specific chemicals and time outdoors that children are exposed to dust are pre-determined by Health Canada hence limiting fudging of those numbers.

Of huge interest to me was the insistence of the importance of practical and useful Method Detection Limits. This was emphasized, especially the fact that the lowest detection limits possible are required and that they MUST BE BELOW THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA provided by the provinces or the federal government. Certainly the TAG Chair and members all picked up on that and recalled the ridiculously high detection limits used in the Canagagigue Creek study by GHD which were dozens to hundreds of times higher than various criteria.

Finally it was also made clear that human exposure is predicted not measured. In other words tissue samples are not collected from potential human receptors to see if indeed they have accumulated the contaminants of concern on a particular site. While this is a weakness compared to Ecological Risk Assessments that collect tissue samples and have formal Tissue Residue Guidelines, clearly this is neither practical, acceptable nor ethical with humans.

This was a very enlightening Webinar and I'm glad I attended.

PUBLIC WEBINAR THIS EVENING AT 6:30 pm. IN WOOLWICH COUNCIL CHAMBERS

I think that it's a three part series as we've already had about a 35 minute web presentation already and there's more to come after tonite. The Webinar is being brought to us (TAG & public) courtesy of TAG (Technical Advisory Group) Chair Tiffany Svensson. I'm doing a little guessing here but I suspect that she may have correctly identified growing concern among the TAG membership with some of the statements and claims coming from Lanxess and their consultants GHD. I base this supposition upon TAG members public and appropriate criticisms of everything from the monthly "Progress Reports" to all kinds of technical reports dealing with the Canagagigue Creek, contaminants of potential concern (COPC), Conceptual Site Models and more.

The Webinars in my opinion to date are extolling the intent, broadness of investigation, scientific validity, and overall positives of Risk Assessments. These Risk Assessments may include Environmental Risk Assessments (ERA) dealing with the natural world and its lifeforms or they can be Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRA). Fifteen or sixteen years ago Elmira & Woolwich residents were treated to a Site Specific HHRA and ERA in regards to the Crompton/Chemtura property in Elmira. They both were a croc. It is my opinion and position based upon experience that the best of programs, plans, blueprints for whatever human endeavour can be grossly mismanaged, manipulated, and bastardized. Where there is a will there is a way.

The third such Webinar will be held at the start of the next formal TAG meeting on Thursday, February 27/20 at 6:30 pm. as well. Despite my skepticism I expect to attend and pay close attention to all three of these Webinars.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION & PARKS (MECP)

O.K. I'm guilty of somewhat gratuitous poking and prodding of the bear with this next comment. I still prefer calling the MECP the Ministry of Expanded Corporate Pollution. There we have to get a giggle at least once in a while when dealing with these )@(#*$*%&^. Hmm seems to be a bit of a typo there. Truth be told I do understand that employees, especially lower level employees of the MECP, have through good looks, lobbying, connections, good fortune, merit or whatever obtained a government job with security, benefits and wages not commensurate with equivalent private sector jobs. They very likely have families, mortgages, and all the rest of daily expenses that they are responsible for. Giving up one's career/job just because one's employer or their raisn d'etre is a sham, is a huge step. Let's be honest. Somebody else will cheerfully take over the job that you found distasteful. So you ignore the big picture. You ignore what you know are counter productive steps such as conditions, rules and regs laid upon known polluters that will never be implemented and never enforced. You focus solely on your job and your responsibilities. You do them diligently and you do not take undue advantage of sick leave (i.e. when you're not sick) or other perks of your job. You attempt to do a full days work for your wages and you continue to hold your nose each and every time a local known polluter screws up the environment publicly that your office has been "monitoring" for years.

Right now such a polluter is Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess. Each successive company has purchased both the assets and the liabilities of their forerunner. Perhaps it is a testament to the weakness of our environmental laws and their enforcement that companies are so willing apparently to buy a company with such a disgraceful environmental history and remaining environmental liabilities. Currently a Site Specific Risk Assessment is in the cards for the Canagagigue Creek. It's only about thirty or fourty years overdue however the delay has been in order for as much as possible of the polluter's toxins to flow, erode and or be flushed downstream into the Grand River. Then of course so as not to provoke the non-righteous wrath of the polluter, certain concessions must be made. Afterall the MECP/MOE certainly don't have the budget, manpower, legislation or anything else necessary to actually force the polluter into compliance. They are and always have been a paper tiger and everyone involved with them knows it perfectly well. They are there to give the appearance of environmental stewardship. Yes they can be hell on wheels for a small company (like Varnicolor Chemical) if provoked sufficiently. The big boys however are way out of their league and that is and has been so by political intent of our provincial governments whether Liberal or Conservative from day one.

The concessions mentioned in the last paragraph include the MOE accepting junk science and methodologies all beneficial to the polluter (think shovel sampling versus core sampling & Method Detection Limits dozens to hundreds of times higher than legislated criteria and standards). Concessions also include looking with a blind eye to all the other contaminated areas and companies and landfills contributing to the pollution of the Canagagigue Creek in Elmira and downstream. I submitted a list of these companies and sites to Woolwich Council and RAC last year. Then of course there are all the other chemical contaminants from Uniroyal that have been arbitrarily and unilaterally dropped from consideration by Lanxess with hardly a whimper from the MECP/MOE. Finally there are contaminated soils on the Stroh and Martin farms to the east and south of Uniroyal/lanxess that have not been properly examined by Lanxess/GHD/MECP. In fact all parties have blatantly refused to do any testing in specific areas pointed out to them on these farms as being repositories of Uniroyal's overflowing east side pits from the late 1940's until about 1970. All of these Persistent Organic Pollutants bind with soil particles but can be eroded/flushed downstream especially during heavy rainfalls and flooding conditions. In fact both of these farms have areas submerged by the Canagagigue Creek when it is in full flood as it has been more often the last few years. Maybe now you can understand why I so frequently show my distaste for the Ontario MECP/MOE. They are an intentional sham and a joke.

PATRONAGE AND OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Today's Waterloo Region Record carries the following opinion article by Frank Addario titled "Ford government seeks to return patronage to judge selection". This title contains both good news and bad news. The good news is that allegedly our current judicial (i.e. judges) appointment system is not corrupt (i.e. political at its worst) and the bad news is that (surprise/surprise) some current politicians want a return to the bad old days.

I have long been of the opinion, based upon both personal experience and paying close attention to current events for many decades that the majority of our lawyers have below average ethics/honesty as do the vast majority of our politicians. Therefore how can you possibly appoint an abundance of good, honest, ethical and unbiased judges one from a group whose majority are lacking necessary qualifications (i.e. ethics/honesty etc.) and two when those doing the appointing are even less qualified (i.e. politicians with ethics/honesty and no biases). Oh my goodness but my computer almost shut down when I wrote the words ethics and honesty in the same sentence as politicians.

Based upon the time frame suggested in this article it appears as if the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee (JAAC) has been around doing good work for about thirty years. The author claims that this committee are far superior than the old pure political appointments of the past. Maybe he's right although I do note that the province (i.e. governing party whether Liberal or Conservative) still appoint roughly half of the members of the public to the JAAC and the rest are appointed by "...the bar and the judiciary.". Hmm this would be the judiciary previously appointed by the Liberal/Conservative parties.

Frankly while there might have been an improvement in the appointments process over the last thirty years based upon merit versus political activity and affiliation it seems still likely that poor candidates have gotten through. If that were not the case then you can bet that smart lawyers (many) would be avoiding the older judges/appointees like the plague in favour of newer/younger appointees. All in all I am not impressed with a system of alleged fairness, honesty, unbiased justice, and rule of law still being in the hands of the most dishonest and unethical (i.e. politicians). There is a reason a particular local, religious group of persons (Mennonites) avoid the courts and prefer to settle grievances among themselves.

PARTLY A POKE, PARTLY A WAKE-UP CALL

I posted here on Monday December 30, 2019 an article titled "A Letter to Woolwich Council, Staff, MOE/MECP, CPAC, Ombudsman etc.". The sub-title was "Sad State Of Public Transparency And Accountability". This morning I sent a followup e-mail to Woolwich Councillors which may also end up going to others as well. Today's e-mail included an Attachment which was an article in last Thursday's Waterloo Region Record titled "Ontario's Ombudsman is more lapdog than watchdog". The Record article was written by Andre Marin who certainly knows what he is talking about in regards to the Ombudsman's office as he held that position from 2005 until 2015. By that time Kathleen Wynne and the governing Liberals had been on the receiving end of far too much criticism (as far as they were concerned) regarding various government bodies and agencies who had at the least under performed their duties according to the Ombudsman's public reports. Hence his mandate was not renewed and he was replaced by the to date unspectacular Paul Dube. Apparently even the Ontario Ombudsman can not fight City Hall indefinitely without paying the consequences.

This is the great truth that so many of our citizens are oblivious to. Democracy is beyond fragile. It is at death's door as the majority of politicians are accomplished liars, deflectors and manipulators. They do not hesitate to "change the narrative", "gild the lily", and "massage the truth" whenever it serves their purposes. They count on not just citizens giving them the benefit of the doubt but even the media tend to be obsequious and respectful towards office holders until at least the particular politician has been caught once too often out and out lying (think D. Trump?).

The purpose of today's e-mail to Woolwich councillors is within the title of this posting above. Woolwich Council and some staff have not been honest with either the public or myself in regards to the methane issues in and around the former Bolender Park Landfill. They have actually accepted a couple of my recommendations for greater monitoring on the north and south sides of the former landfill all the while publicly, falsely, denying almost every fact I presented to them and the public. Hard to have any respect at all for that kind of behaviour. It seems as if they'd rather prove themselves as blatant liars rather than ever admit that either they or their predecessors made mistakes.

NORTH WELLFIELD NDMA 100% FROM UNIROYAL, SOUTH WELLFIELD NOT SO MUCH

It wasn't just Varnicolor Chemical's can coating compound manufactured inside their now long gone orange building that contributed to NDMA production in soils and groundwater in the aquifers in the south end of Elmira, Ontario. It was also their production of detergents and windshield washer fluids among other products. Last May 7, 2019 I posted an article here titled ""A Water Pistol In A Thunderstorm"- I Think Not". In that posting I indicated Varnicolor Chemical had dumped both dimethylamine as well as dimethylamine waste waters from their orange building into underground vessels designed to allow them to leak into the surrounding soils.

I was aware that Varnicolor had also manufactured various detergents, windshield wiper fluid and other liquid products for sale. How long this went on and what the volumes produced and sold were I do not know. I can however with confidence suggest that if asked the Ontario MOE/MECP would most certainly minimize those volumes to the tiniest amount possible. It turns out that these products are produced using quarternary ammonium salts otherwise known as quarternary amines. Applications for this group of compounds includes disinfectants, surfactants, fabric softeners, shampoos, as well as the previously mentioned detergents and windshield wiper fluid.

The can coating compound was made from dimethylamine, a direct precurser to NDMA. Coating the inside of metal cans was used for corrosion inhibiting purposes. Other amines are also possible precursers to NDMA under the appropriate conditions. This includes acidic environments, presence of nitrates or nitrites etc. In the May 7/2019 posting here I had quoted from a document (Exhibit I) submitted to the Environmental Appeal Board in 1990. It clarified the conditions necessary for spontaneous (exogenously) formed NDMA in the natural environment. This I can say in regards to the volumes of relevant liquid products produced by Varnicolor Chemical. With or without actual production records, the concentrations of chemicals and by-products of detergents, shampoos, surfactants, windshield wiper fluid etc. are significant years after production stopped. These concentrations were found in shallow soils, groundwater, deeper soils (7'-12') as well as within the two buried vessels that received the liquid waste waters from the orange building.

I do not believe for one second that both Uniroyal Chemical and the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) did not have this full knowledge in 1990 and I believe that they intentionally have kept it to themselves for the last thirty years. In fact this information may have been the biggest reason why the MOE gave Uniroyal the Indemnity and sweetheart agreement they did in October 1991.