A TRULY INACCURATE AND AWFUL EDITORIAL

I've lost count of how many times over the years I've praised the presence of the Elmira Independent at public CPAC meetings. They used to be joined many years ago by the Woolwich Observer and the K-W Record. For many, many years the Independent have been going it alone, spending their reporter's time (Julie Sawyer) followed by their Editor's time (Gail Martin) at these meetings. Gail has been carrying the load for about the last two or three years I believe. There are some factual inaccuracies that need clearing up regarding Gail's Editorial today.

In the second paragraph Gail stated that Chemtura publicly criticized CPAC Chaiman Dan Holt at Woolwich Council by suggesting his breech of confidentiality was unprofessional. Chemtura did much more than that. They strongly implied that he bluntly was lying about the verification decision having been made. Secondly there was no breech of confidentiality and Chemtura knows that. As should Gail. She was present at both the Council meeting and at CPAC Monday night.

Third paragraph, no Chemtura were not within their rights to dispute Dan's account of the verification decision at the previous Council meeting, one week earlier. This is because Dan was being truthful and they knew that. They disputed Dan's comments because they had a plan in place to reverse the verification decision and Dan was unknowingly threatening it.

Approximately the seventh paragraph states that "...given the fact that the verification team is expected to reach an unanimous conclusion, Mclean's membership on the committee is unlikely to make a difference...". Good Lord that is completely wrong! Possibly half an hour of last Monday's meeting was spent discussing minority or dissenting opinions on the verification team. There will not be a unanimous decision unless it is as it was, namely no to verification. Verification team decisions absolutely do not have to be unanimous as stated by Mr. Masterson, VP. of CIAC.

Approximately the ninth paragraph suggests that yours truly has more influence with the young CPAC than is accurate. If current CPAC members don't trust former CPAC members and their relationship with Chemtura, this reflects among other things the rude behaviour of three or four former CPAC members towards the young CPAC. The old CPAC members noses are way out of joint because they were not reappointed to CPAC by the new Woolwich Council two years ago. The old CPAC members do indeed have a comfortable relationship with Chemtura. Chemtura would be ecstatic to be back dealing with the old versus the young CPAC. Read between the lines if necessary.

Pat Mclean is both a member of the current verification team and also a member of the National Advisory Panel of the Chemistry Industry Assoc'n of Canada (CIAC). She absolutely hid her membership on the NAP while she was CPAC Chair. It is of great importance that she has been appointed by Chemtura, through APT, to the verification team. Chemtura do not and have never appointed serious critics to their verification team.

I repeat that today's Elmira Independent Editorial is both disappointing and highly inaccurate.

MY DELEGATION TO LAST MONDAY'S CPAC MEETING

So far I have described both CPAC and SWAT members contributions to the discussion surrounding *Responsible Care verification at last Monday evening's public CPAC meeting. As a formal Delegate I read a two page document and left copies for CPAC, Woolwich Township and Mr. Masterson of the CIAC. Today I will be reproducing here only the last paragraph of my Presentation /Delegation to CPAC.

"I raised three needs in Waterloo Region. Regarding Elmira, product stewardship does not mean leaving solvents, dioxins, LNAPLS and DNAPLS and other chemical wastes in the ground for the last twenty-three years. Secondly honest communication with stakeholders does not mean hiding the October 7, 1991 Settlement Agreement aka "sweetheart deal" between Chemtura and the M.O.E. from the public. Being given an Indemnity for known contamination and hiding behind it is not the *Responsible care ethic. It also does not mean attending Woolwich Council last month and publicly accusing the CPAC Chair of lying and of breeching confidentiality. Finally and thirdly there has yet not been a legitimate attempt to clean up the Elmira Aquifers. There has been, with the complicity of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, more junk science and psuedo science than anything else. Source removal in conjunction with hydraulic containment twenty years ago would have this cleanup well underway. Recently the Region of Waterloo advised us that they will not spend time or money preparing for the reintroduction of the Elmira Aquifers until AFTER they have nominally achieved cleanup. The earliest date Elmira will be back on their own water supply IF all goes well, is 2050. This company apparently feel entitled to *Responsible Care verification. I suggest to you Mr. Masterson that the honest and informed citizens of this community feel otherwise.

Alan Marshall Elmira Environmental Hazards Team & SWAT team member "

MORE ON MONDAY NITE"S CPAC MEETING

Sebastian clearly and logically raised the advantages of having two opinions on a technical matter. He compared it to a second doctor confirming a diagnosis. Chemtura however as usual were intentionally obtuse and unwilling to concede any advantages whatsoever. Sebastian did suggest that they were relying entirely on Conestoga Rovers and that a second opinion would be worthwhile. Sebastian was too polite to state the obvious which is that CRA are client driven and thus not nuetral or unbiased. Sebastian again for possibly the third month in a row indicated that CPAC absolutely do not support Chemtura/CRA plans for the partial scraping and cleanup of Dioxins at GP1 & 2.

CPAC have decided to change their name. The original plan was to replace Chemtura with "Citizens". This would hopefully clarify in the public's mind that this is NOT a committee of or controlled by Chemtura. Dwight Este suggested that CPAC should make a greater change as the acronym would be the same. Personally I like the change while incorporating the continuity of CPAC or Citizens Public Advisory Committee.

There was a new person in the gallery Monday night with some interesting questions for Chemtura. Her name is Susannah and her questions related to GP1 & 2 and a possible Environmental Assessment. She has a technical background possibly as a hydrogeological technician. The more the merrier as citizens getting involved is the last thing that Chemtura welcome.

Bob Masterson mentioned the *Responsible Care ethic as being doing the right thing and being seen to do the right thing. This alone is another smoking gun as to why Chemtura do not and have never deserved verification.

Vivian mentioned two other issues with Chemtura such as their failure to promptly report the BLE-25 air emissions to Woolwich Council over two years ago. She also advised that Chemtura had intentionally and spitefully attempted to undermine both CPAC and CPAC's Chair at Woolwich Council prior to christmas.

Regarding minority or dissenting opinions on the verification team, Bob Masterson of the CIAC made it clear that both majority and minority opinions/positions must be documented and that the company must clearly state if there is a dissenting opinion by a verification team member. Furthermore I was a little put off by Mr. Masterson's repeatedly passing the buck from the CIAC (Chemistry Institute Assocn of Canada) onto the team by suggesting that they made the complete or incomplete decision, not CIAC. This may be true but a very large component of the team is determined by the CIAC.

CPAC Chair Dan spelled it out loud and clear and publicly. Dwight (Chemtura) was gilding the lily with his excuses at CPAC about Dan allegedly breeching confidentiality and lying about the verification team having reached a final decision. Dan stated the following without further denial and argument from Chemtura.
1) the decision was verbally agreed to that verifcation could not proceed
2) there was no time for Chemtura's latest "plan" to be implemented
3) the verification team's meetings were over. There were no further plans for meetings expressed.

Clearly after the fact and without Dan's prior knowledge, efforts were made by either or Chemtura and the CIAC to do damage control. This "damage control" meant another kick at the can AFTER the team had made their negative decision regarding verification. Clearly this verification team process needs work and that's all on the CIAC. Clearly there is a bias involved and that's all on the CIAC. CPAC as they always have, have given Chemtura the benefit of the doubt and second and third chances. Agreeing to Mr. Masterson attend CPAC and clarify *Responsible Care is just one more example of CPAC going the extra mile. Chemtura FAILED or were INCOMPLETE with their verification. If CIAC/verification team turn around and claim Chemtura PASSED or COMPLETED their verification then it will sully the CIAC's allegedly open and transparent process. I say to you CIAC that your reputation is as much or more on the line here as is Chemtura's. Doing the right thing and being seen to do the right thing is a no brainer.

DOES SEMANTICS & DIALOGUE TRUMP HONESTY & FORTHRIGHTNESS?

Last night's public CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) meeting was both elevating and unnerving. Instead of yours truly having to be the only critic present, those duties were ably shared with each and every CPAC member present. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that even Pat Mclean, present for only the second time in two years and Susan Bryant, present probably for only the third or fourth time, both asked some excellent questions in regards to the partial Dioxin removal planned for GP1 & 2. The unnerving part was one of the slickest presentations I've seen in a while, by the vice-president of the Chemical Industry Assocn of Canada (CIAC). This gentleman was affable, well spoken and clearly enjoyed talking about *Responsible Care. He was almost impossible to pin down on the difficult questions that CPAC politely peppered him with. Note I say almost.

In the world of honest persons, a direct answer to a direct question is considered polite. Now if the question is either rude or irrelevant or personal, then an honest person does not engage in a five minute, circuitous dialogue, essentially saying nothing. They bluntly say either no comment or none of your business. They don't bullshit. Last night CPAC members Dan, Vivienne, David and Sebastian asked relevant, pertinent questions of both Mr. Masterson of the CIAC and of Chemtura staff (Josef, Dwight & Jeff). The bulk of these questions dealt with ethics, honesty, forthrightness and how they fit into the *Responsible Care mold. CPAC wanted to know where the CIAC stood on giving *Responsible Care verifcation to a company (Chemtura) who treated their stakeholders dishonestly and disrespectfully. CPAC were searching for straight answers to straight questions and it was nothing but stickhandling, avoidance, smooth talking, deflection and word games in response.

Mr. Masterson reminded me of a flyweight boxer. He danced, spun, twisted and avoided all direct questions. He was far better at it then Josef, Dwight and Jeff who whined about either hypothetical questions or who went off on their own self made tangents such as why should we pay for three, four or five different opinions when we've already paid for Conestoga Rovers? Sebastian bluntly brought that back to earth by stating that CPAC wanted ONE peer review for a total of TWO opinions, not three, four or five. Chemtura danced forever around the makeup of the *Responsible Care verification team at Chemtura. Finally after multiple questions from numerous CPAC members they finally, grudgingly admitted that yes they do appoint local groups to provide them with verification members.

Similarily Mr. Masterson absolutely would not agree that CIAC verification would be viewed by the community as some sort of an endorsement for Chemtura's behaviour and cleanup. Again playing word games and using semantics he avoided being pinned down even by the obvious. Chemtura desperately want this CIAC verification to shore up their plunging public appearance. Whether from CPAC's Resolution of last spring criticizing their alleged cleanup or the ever growing understanding that their partners CRA and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment are promoting their interests, not the publics', their public image is in freefall.

The gloves came off when CPAC members VIV and Dr. Dan (Chair) confronted Chemtura regarding their public, verbal assault upon Dr. Dan at Woolwich Council prior to Christmas. Dwight attempted to bafflegab with comments about how they were merely criticizing Dan's going public with information they considered private. Yours truly joined the fray as I had been present at that Council meeting. Dwight was set straight and I made it very clear to Mr. Masterson of the CIAC that personal, inaccurate public attacks of the public advisory chair grossly violated the ethics of *Responsible Care. Once again he was carefully non-committal.

Richard Clausi of the SWAT sub-committee had participated regarding the makeup of Chemtura's verifcation team and as well he spoke at the end as part of Public Forum. He pointed out to the CIAC gentleman that he Richard had participated in three different public advisory committees, namely varnicolor, Sulco and Chemtura. He advised that Sulco were the gold standard of a company who were honest and forthright whereas Chemtura absolutely were not. They are unreasonable, combative and dogmatic and they feel that their bought and paid for consultants should not be challenged.

There was considerable discussion and questions surrounding minority positions on the verifcation team. Clearly CPAC do NOT remotely support Chemtura achieving verification. Dr. Dan is the only member of a six member team that was appointed through the committee of Woolwich Council, namely CPAC. Pat Mclean was appointed essentially by Chemtura, although through APT Environment. I do not know how many APTE members were involved in that decision but my guess is between two and four. Regardless if Chemtura achieve verification it will be contrary to the wishes of the public advisory committee appointed by Woolwich Council two years ago. I expect that Pat McLean as a National Advisoy Panel member of the CIAC will ultimately favour verification. If so it will be a triumph of rigged process and appointment versus honest earning of what Mr. Masterson referred to in one breath as the gold standard award for industry while in the next claiming oh no it's not an endorsement of Chemtura. Bullshit baffles brains but fortunately not all the time.

CONESTOGO WINTERBOURNE RESIDENTS ASSOCN versus HUNDER GRAVEL PIT

Saturday's Woolwich Observer carrys this story "Valentine's fundraiser to help community group fund its gravel pit fight". A dinner and dance are scheduled for February 9 at the Conestogo Golf and Country Club. The CWRA was formed five years ago to block the proposed Hunder gravel pit. They have raised to date $172,000 and feel that an additional $42,000 is required to carry them through the legal processes of the Ontario Municipal Board. These costs will include lawyers for the group as well as expert witnesses to counter the arguments and positions of the experts hired by the proponent.

Herein lies the inherent contradictions within a so called democracy. This pit will lower the quality of life for the nearby residents and it will lower the value of their homes and properties. At the same time, just like the rest of us, they are paying taxes to municipal, provincial and federal governments for services including health, safety and protection from catastrophic losses. Why in the name of God do they have to bear the financial burden of defending their homes and quality of life AND pay taxes to three levels of government who are supposed to be doing the same thing? What is even worse is that the laws passed by these levels of government have long favoured the making of money by small groups at the expense of the taxpaying public. There is absolutely zero need for gravel to be extracted from along the Grand River, from beside the West Montrose Covered Bridge or beside residential neighbourhoods in Conestogo and Winterbourne. The gravel is merely cheaper to extract there as it's closer to the surface than farther away from the river. Cheaper that is when the social and personal costs are transferred away from the aggregate producer and put upon the backs of nearby residents.

The system has long been broken entirely in the favour of the few at the expense of the many. So much for democracy.

WEST MONTROSE COVERED BRIDGE PUBLIC NOTICE

Last Thursday's Elmira Independent has a Public Notice of a PIC (Public Information Centre) regarding the covered bridge scheduled for 5:30-7:30 pm., February 12, 2013 at Woolwich Township Council chambers. There will be a formal presentation from 6:30-7:30 pm.. This PIC is in regards to proposed construction and management of the bridge for its' long term viability.

It is my opinion that the covered bridge is the underpinning regarding opposition to the Capitol Paving nearby proposed gravel pit. Anything sustaining the bridge is good for both the residents and the environment. The OMB also in their infinite weirdness are more likely to deny the gravel pit based on the presence of the bridge than upon the accumulative negative effects to the heritage Grand River caused by ever growing gravel pits along its' banks. Gravel actually is a filter and improves the health of rivers. Constantly removing it from all our local river banks is simply theft of a public good for private benefit. Our politicians have long passed laws to help the greedy elite, at the expense of the public.

ANOTHER NEW CPAC TIME

The Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) time has been changed back to 6 PM. this coming Monday at Woolwich Council. Sorry for the confusion but accomodating people's hectic schedules is challenging.