RECENT CHEMTURA/ M.O.E. ZINGERS & HUMDINGERS

Approximately a year and a half ago citizen Susan Bryant publicly expresed her concern to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment that an aerial photograph possibly depicted some sort of pathway, or overland flow of liquids from near the highly contaminated GP1 & 2, southerly towards a family swimming pond (Martin). GP1 & 2 are on Chemtura's extreme south-east corner and allegedly were the recipients of "seepage and overflow from the east pits". They are also highly contaminated with Dioxins and DDT at a minimum. Our illustrious M.O.E. "investigated". They advised that they took soil samples from the berm around the pond as well as doing a walkaround for visual examination. They advised Susan (& CPAC) that all was well and the pond was safe and uncontaminated. They did not take sediment or other samples from the interior sides or bottom of the pond. More importantly they deflected and avoided the basic question as to whether there was or had been overland flow from Chemtura's highly contaminated south-east corner towards the Martin pond. The answer we now know is that there is a man made drain running parallel to and twenty feet away from Chemtura's property line for several hundred yards which runs southwards excruciatingly close to the Martin pond. It is also downslope from the south-east end of GP1. Thank you George Karlos and the M.O.E. for your lack of forthrightness and honesty.

I wrote down a particularly funny quote from last Thursday's CPAC meeting. It was "...the neighbour's property rights need to be respected.". I think it came from George Karlos although Mark Bauman was also on the same kick. According to that opinion it would be inappropriate to do soil sampling on the neighbour's property to determine if there was a long term repository of Dioxins/DDT which slowly are discharging downstream and negatively impacting both human beings and the environment.

Further to "...seepage and overflow from the east pits..." the story changed a little on Thursday evening. Jeff Merriman advised that he'd received information from the now deceased Harry Soehner, former Industrial Relations Manager at Uniroyal, that occasionally (annually?) they would "...open the gates to drain them (east pits).". Really? I'm not exactly sure how that somehow helps Uniroyal's image as uncaring, unthinking, dirty polluters. In fact what it does do for me is indicate that on a regular basis (annually?) there was quoting Susanna "...a tidal wave..." of water, solvents and DDT/Dioxins flowing downgradient from RPE 4 & 5. While "tidal wave" was Susanna's words she was actually attempting to suggest that there wasn't enough volume of liquids to flow through the Chemtura wetland over to the neighbouring property. While undoubtedly lots would simply soak into the ground if there was enough volume at once it could certainly flow overland.

I wonder if you tell a lie long enough, such as GP1 & 2 collected all the "seepage and overflow from the east pits"; can you actually begin to believe it? In other words if Uniroyal/Chemtura were blatantly lying twenty years ago about this; are they still blatantly lying or are they beginning to believe their own BS?

LAST THURSDAY'S CPAC MEETING

Jaimie Connelly, senior M.O.E. hydrogeologist, referred to his May 2, 2008 DNAPL letter as a technical review of the status of the Investigation to date. By this point in time eight of the ten private meetings had been completed as well as the bulk of the written reports. I wonder if both Jaimie's letter as well as Wilf Ruland's were more along the line of Minority Reports. Both of them parted ways severely with Conestoga Rovers on a number of huge DNAPL issues. While Jaimie was forthcoming, albeit technical and carefully worded, it was strange as to how early he departed. Thus after he was gone Jeff Merriman of Chemtura had free rein to claim there was a concensus on the DNAPL Technical Committee. George Karlos (M.O.E.) alleged that Jaimie had a very bad back and thus we were to assume that was why he left early. If these parties had a history of honesty It would be easier to buy that scenario.

George K. responded to further inquiries regarding the cleanup criteria that will be required in 2028. Once again the M.O.E. don't have an answer although George claims that they are working on it.

We were advised that the *Responsible Care verification is set for March 2015 and thus to date no decisions have been made as to who will represent Elmira citizens. Clearly there are only one or two CPAC members out of seven that Chemtura would care for but it should be CPAC as a whole who choose. I expect that Chemtura again this time will use all manipulative means to stock the team with their fellow travellors.

Financial assurance was again raised with me suggesting that the M.O.E. required it from Varnicolor Chemical so why not Chemtura. Chair Dr. Dan also advised that Woolwich Bio-En provided one as well so why not Chemtura. Ron Campbell indicated that as the taxpayers were paying 50% of the off-site cleanup on an ongoing basis we had a legitimate basis to want our investment protected by a Financial Assurance from Chemtura.

Jaimie answered many questions regarding his DNAPL letter including ones related to source removal rather than hydraulic containment. Jaimie emphasized that the latter was good for short and medium term stopping the spread of dissolved contaminants but that it does not deal with long term threats or with Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquids. Regarding the shallow aquifer containment, he referred to it as imperfect. Jaimie had little or no answer to my question why the shallow DNAPL beneath RPW5, 6 & 7 could not be removed. Interestingly Jaimie indicated that there was no stopping date for on-site hydraulic containment as long as DNAPL source material remained there.

Graham Chevreau inquired as to whether the Bedrock Aquifer was contained. Jaimie indicated that it was not on site but that it was off-site at wells W4, W5A and E7.

Mark Bauman asked questions around In Situ Chemical Oxidation. Jaimie advised that the big problem with ISCO was the delivery to the appropriate areas. I advised that Chemtura do a test run on site in areas of higher contamination. Ron Campbell suggested that if it worked off-site then try it on site. It would be "a great opportunity" he said. Jeff Merriman actually agreed that Chemtura would seriously consider it. That and a cup of coffee might give you a decent cup of coffee on a good day.

Jaimie commented that on-site cleanup at Chemtura will never happen in our lifetimes. He also oddly suggested to me that the June 21, 2000 Amending Order relieved Chemtura of the higher standards/criteria demanded in the November 1991 Control Order. I knew it did this regarding 100% containment in all aquifers provision but Jaimie seemed to be suggesting that it also took away the requirement for removal of DNAPL as a contaminant source. I've reread the 2000 Amending order and i don't see that.

Both Susanna and Mark Bauman took strangely strong positions in favour of agreeing to only two additional soil sample points. George (M.O.E.) wanted this agreement from CPAC and those two were clearly agreeable. Fortunately Graham, Ron and I discussed "representative" sampling as well as two sample points only in such a large area being hit or miss. Ron even suggested "Do it right or don't do it at all. ". While it was suggested that "a tidal wave" would be required to send water and solvents through Chemtura's wetland onto the neighbours property (east); interestingly we were given a somewhat similar scenario. Jeff M. described a scenario whereby on a regular basis (annually?) gates in the retention pits were opened and they were drained en mass allegdly towards furrows directing them southwards towards GP1 & 2.

Ron Campbell worked hard to convince George to do the right thing despite Susanna and Mark's attempts to undermine. Ron suggested that two sample points weren't enough, weren't adequate and definitely was not normal sampling procedure. George mostly talked in circles trying to avoid both Ron's and my points. Finally Ron said "Come on George there's lots of evidence to support an Order" to do the work off site. George kept making excuses as to why the M.O.E. couldn't take samples on the neighbour's property as well as why they were only going to take two samples near the property line. George's excuses were exactly that. They and Chemtura are covering up yet again.

I also advised that as Chemtura's contaminants had been found one mile away in the south wellfield as well as five miles away at the mouth of the Canagagigue Creek at the Grand River; then who was he fooling that they hadn't moved a few feet across an imaginary property border. Graham stated that the sample points had to be necessary, reasonable and protective of the environment and that so far they were not. He also stated that "representative" sampling had a formal process. There is a methodology involved to determine how many samoples are representative and that George was ignoring that standard operating practice.

CPAC as a whole, less Mark & Susanna, were not impressed with either Chemtura or the M.O.E.'s excuses, delays and obfuscations. They are unable to give intelligent, reasonable answers to important questions. Quite frankly in hindsight Chemtura and the M.O.E. have also lied again regarding pretending that they don't have evidence that these eastern pits, especially RPE 4 & 5 have not discharged either directly onto the neighbouring property or southwards into the wetland and from there overland ionto the neighbour's property.

PARTNERS IN POLLUTION POLLUTE PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Do not ever forget the names Chemtura Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Factual fictions, manipulation and extortion are part of their methodology. M.O.E. extortion goes like this. Oh we won't bring our experts to the next meeting unless you rein in your hardnosed questioning. Our experts are intimidated. The next stunt George Karlos Assistant Director Central Region pulled was advising that without questions in advance to Jaimie Connelly, senior hydrogeologist, he wouldn't bring him to last night's meeting. Jaimie to his credit went through the written questions he'd received in advance after first advising he'd do that plus answer any other questions that came to him. Jaimie then backed his May 2, 2008 DNAPL letter.

Chemtura extortion is hanging in the wind. They had been asked to explain why they refused to assist CPAC in order to hire a peer reviewer after CPAC jumped through their hoops and loops regarding details and specifics as to what, where and who the money was going to. They then flatly refused and to date are avoiding an explanation. Furthermore they advised last evening that they still want a sitdown meeting with CPAC and the Township regarding that matter and other financial matters. Hmm. There's a strong odour of little boys taking their bat and ball and going home when they are losing. Is it possible that those little shits are going to lift their funding of the CPAC Secretary ? Ahh now it's getting clearer. Is this why Corrinne recently stepped down after many years as CPAC Secretary? Did she get tipped that Chemtura were getting peckish over their waning influence over CPAC and thus what Chemtura's possible infantile response would be?

Factual fictions are next. George fibbed like a dog in avoiding acknowledging Ron Campbell's points about contamination knows no boundaries. GP1 is highly contaminated with Dioxins and DDT and literally comes within inches of the farm to the east. The eastern pits on Chemtura's property are also right up against their eastern property boundary. Ron wanted an appropriate number of sampling points to have some meaning from whatever the results were. George just played dumb throughout. Finally in exasperation Ron told him he wasn't going to banter any further with him. Simiarily Graham Chevreau advised George that sampling had to be "representative". In other words you have to have enough samples of an area to logically be able to interpret the results, relative to the area. For example taking two soil samples fifty yards apart in an area one hundred and fifty metres square is essentially meaningless. Especially so when George advises you that you'll wait a year or two for the results and then go back and maybe do the same thing all over again.

Chemtura have always been economical with the truth. I'll leave that to Jeff Merriman. His statements about the DNAPL Investigation are beyond ridiculous. His statements about Jaimie and Wilf's DNAPL letters are humdingers. Blatantly truth challenged has been raised to an art form.

Manipulation by George Karlos goes like this. You have alleged that there is a large Dioxin/DDT "sink" in the south-east area both on and off the Chemtura site. Therefore in response we are prepared to add two soil sampling sites at the location of your choice. CPAC can protest this meaningless two site travesty of an "investigation" but if they advise the M.O.E. of two possible sites then from that point on CPAC were "consulted" and the M.O.E. were "responsive".

Chemtura manipulation has been ongoing for twenty-five years. I'll focus on the present. Maybe they'll say to CPAC we're pulling our funding of your Secretary plus stationery expenses unless we get the following. That's possible and I've already told CPAC not to dare sell me down the river for a stinking ten thousand dollars. However for fifty thousand payable annually to CPAC for a secretary plus ongoing peer reviews; hell I'd be flatterred. I believe that my honest efforts do far more damage than that to Chemtura's credibility so they'd be getting a bargain if I got bounced from SWAT (soil, water, air & technical) and it only cost them fifty grand.

Last night was another shit kicking for both Chemtura and the M.O.E.. The more you see them the harder it is to have any sympathy for them. The next CPAC meeting isn't scheduled until August 28/14 at 6 pm.. Maybe if we're lucky one or both of them will run for the hills. If they do, expect the spin doctors out in full force.

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT NEONICOTONOID PESTICIDES KILL BEES

Today's Waterloo Region Record carrys this story ""Neonic" pesticides are bee killers: study". O.K. maybe it's just me but is the reference to "neonics" simply a shortform for "neonicotonoids", or are they different? According to the first paragraph it seems as if they are indeed different. Presumably they are somehow chemically related with the closeness in their names. Regardless an international panel of scientists categorically state that these pesticides are killing bees and should be phased out. Environmental groups on the other hand believe they should be banned outright immediately. More than half a century after Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" we have yet different pesticides implicated in the deaths of bees, birds and earthworms. The moral is that yes human beings learn but we have a political system in place to insulate and preserve the "right" to make money regardless of the cost to society and the natural world. Shame on us!

CPAC MEETING TOMORROW NITE AT 6 PM.

6 pm. tomorrow in the Woolwich Council Chambers on Church St. in Elmira; we the local citizens will once again be forced into taking several rounds out of Chemtura, their consultants and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. This is unfortunate but as those parties routinely gild the lily in order to make the lack of cleanup look less unconscionable, it becomes necessary.

Some of the items up for discussion tomorrow include downstream monitoring for dioxins and DDT in the Canagagigue Creek as well as upstream both on the Chemtura property as well as on their eastern neighbour's property. Unless or until reliable information is presented clarifying the surface flow of solvents, dioxins and DDT into the former gravel pits (GP1 & 2) in Chemtura's south-east corner; then it appears as if their entire south-east quandrant and part of their neighbour's property is suspect.

A timing update for Chemtura's *Responsible Care verification will also be requested. We the citizens got gamed last time with the former CPAC Chair aiding Chemtura in getting a do over after they had initially failed their verification. This time round Chemtura will either follow the spirit and rules of the *Responsible Care verification or they will be publicly outed prior to their cheating again.

It is possible that the M.O.E. will bring their senior hydrogeologist Jaimie Connelly to the meeting tomorrow night to answer inquiries around his May 2, 2008 DNAPL letter. Meanwhile George Karlos (M.O.E.) has stated in an e-mail that unless their is new evidence since, that Jaimie stands behind his letter. Well I would certainly hope so although it's that "new" evidence that is concerning. Afterall the Ministry's idea of public consultation certainly includes public suppression of key documents.

There should also be a discussion concerning the proposed In Situ Chemical Oxidation as well as the tripling of off-site pumping. I am hoping that the M.O.E. start these Certificate of Aprroval negotiations for additional discharge of treated water to the creek immediately. What we don't need are two to four year process for off-site improvements only to be stymied by the new discharge criteria not being ready.

Chemtura are also supposed to be comparing Wilf Ruland's May 2008 DNAPL letter recommendations #5,6,7,10 & 11 to their so called concensus Summary Table 6.5 . The comparisons are huge and the similarities slim but never count out the bullshit baffles brains talents of Chemtura and CRA.

IS OUR COUNCILLOR BAUMAN ASSISTING THE REGION OF WATERLOO IN ANOTHER DRINKING WATER COVERUP?

This spring, most likely in early April I was posting here in regards to the long time drinking water issues in West Montrose, the home of our famous covered bridge. By comparing years of regional Annual Drinking Water Reports I determined that West Montrose's drinking wells have consistently had the highest levels of Total Coliforms and E.Coli of any drinking water sources in Waterloo Region. These bacterial contaminants are associated with fecal bacteria such as those discharged from septic tanks.

After bringing this in detail to the attention of Councillors Bryant and Bauman of Woolwich Township, I was asked by Councillor Bauman to produce a list of technical questions to be handed over to the Region for their response. This was done nearly three months ago. Since then I have been informed twice by Councillor Bauman that the Region have responded in writing but no he will not give me their reponses allegedly until sometime after the Ministry of Environment provide their responses. Councillor Bauman has been advised that any future cooperation and free work done by me on behalf of the Township hangs upon my receiving the answers to my questions now.

The following are a verbatim selection of some of the questions regarding West Montrose water that the Region received.


Has the Ontario M.O.E. given the Region express permission to operate the West Montrose System with regular chloramine exceedances?
Turbidity (NTU) appears to be regularily above the standards but not regularily reported as an Adverse Incident or anything else. Have the M.O.E. given the Region permission to relax those rules/standards?

Why does the Region not report on Haloacetic Acids and Cyanogen Chloride as by-products of disinfection?

NDMA readings should be a vital part of West Montrose's Annual Report. Why not?

Is the most likely source of bacteria to the four West Montrose wells nearby septic systems? If not what is, considering bacteria from the river must travel both horizontally and vertically through sand and gravel to get into the wellscreens of WM 1, 2, 3 & 4?
Why are the ongoing deliveries of water to the West Montrose reservoir not mentioned in the Annual (Drinking Water) reports?

Is NDMA formation by chloramines increased in the presence of dimethylamine which is ubiquitous in municipal and septic wastewaters?
Allegedly many chloramine exceedances are "...from short term on-line analyser spikes." What time definition does the Region use to differentiate between regular versus short term exceedances?

Does either the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act or O.Reg 170/03 suggest this differentiation?

Up until 2013 the Region included the actual chloramine readings. Now they simply show the greater than symbol 1e. > for exceedances. Why the change?

How many other West Montrose wells ahve been shut down and for what time periods? Have any of these shutdowns or service interruptions, off-line periods etc. been reported in any of the Annual Reports? If so please provide or so indicate. Thank you.

Three months and I'm still waiting for the responses to my own questions that have already been answered. Has somebody made a deal with the Region of Waterloo and for what exactly? Why do I think that as usual it's the public who are the losers in this coverup?

COULD THEY BE GETTING READY TO RUN?

For a very long time I've felt that Uniroyal/Chemtura were an integral part of the community in Elmira, Ontario providing employment and a tax base, at a minimum. This belief is being shaken. I'm slowly beginning to realize that it is unlikely that this company's American masters will ever be willing to pay even a small proportion of the full costs to undo the environmental damage they have done. As far as the health damage those costs also will never be recaptured by Ontario taxpayers. I am aware of government jurisdictions sucessfully sueing tobacco companies and indeed now looking at Big Sugar for the health damages they have done. Will the time come when complicit governments will also go after particular chemical companies for their antisocial behaviour and resulting injuries?

This last month has not been kind to either Chemtura Canada or the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. With a little literary license here I could be persuaded that the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee (CPAC) are howling for blood. They are not amused at even more recent revelations indicating dishonest and nefarious behaviour by 2/3 of the partners in pollution. The October 7,1991 Settlement Agreement aka "Sweetheart Deal" and associated Indemnity was bad enough. Now despite protestations from Susan Bryant that "nothing was suppressed - maybe lost, maybe not attended to but not suppressed", the evidence says otherwise. Two breakthrough letters regarding removal of on-site DNAPLS were suppressed by the past CPAC Chair with the complicity of Chemtura and the M.O.E.. Jaimie Connelly, M.O.E. senior hydrogeologist, and Wilf Ruland hired and paid by Woolwich Township stepped up and put in writing their opinions on DNAPLS. Wilf's May 15, 2008 letter not only didn't get to multiple CPAC members at the time, as admitted by Susan Bryant, but it never even got filed into the Township's CPAC archives. I of course as a decades long member of CPAC and environmental activist never even so much as heard about these two letters until this past January.

Next we have the recent revelations surrounding Chemtura's eastern property border and previously unknown surface water drain. How do we suddenly discover twenty-five years later a major surface drain immediately downgradient of their eastern retention pits (RPE 1,2 3, 4, 5) running parallel to their property line, only twenty feet away? After the very same Susan Bryant raised concerns about potential surface drainage over a year ago does the M.O.E. "investigate" and advise CPAC & Susan that there is no surface drain from Chemtura going overland towards an old order mennonite swimming pond when there certainly is! The likelihood of Dioxin and DDT transport is huge and even after the fact the M.O.E. so far do not appear to be taking it seriously.

At the last CPAC meeting (May 29/14) Chemtura and the M.O.E. got roasted as reported in detail by me here in the Advocate. Well our new CPAC Secretary Lisa, released the Minutes of the meeting last Friday. Again I've reported some of the details but briefly stated Chemtura and the M.O.E. must be squirming. If they had had to suffer these public humiliations on an ongoing basis over the last twenty-five years then we'd either have a cleaned up Elmira or they would have slinked off, never to be seen again, a long time ago.

Obviouly the M.O.E. are attributing at least some of the heat to me. I've long known that both they and Chemtura have lobbied Woolwich Township for years to get me off and keep me off CPAC. Their attitude is that as a formal CPAC member it gives weight to my opinions. This is true but they have also miscalculated badly. Even as a member of CPAC's sub-committee known as SWAT I've done serious damage to their credibility. George Karlos, Assistant Director of the West Central Division of the M.O.E. has been mounting a campaign to remove me from SWAT. Basically he's been not so subtly harassing the CPAC Chair with ongoing comments and complaints that my "behaviour" is contrary to Woolwich Township's Code of Conduct. Clearly public consultation for this government Ministry is a one way street involving the Ministry being given carte blanche the right to lie, cheat and deceive the public, whereas the long suffering public are expected never to get upset by the M.O.E.'s dispicable behaviour. It is to the credit of both CPAC and their Chair that this hypocritical behaviour has been recently squelched in a most professional but firm manner.

Hence Chemtura head office in Waterbury Connecticut; I think you've overstayed your welcome. My preference is for you to stay and clean up your mess but if you're not willing to do so then please leave.