REGION OF WATERLOO PUBLIC NOTICE

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN


The above Notice was published three days ago in the Waterloo Regional Record and as well I believe I saw it yesterday in the Woolwich Observer. The title is the Rationalization of the Boundaries for Elmira, St. Jacobs, and Breslau. Quite frankly I get fed up when I see politicians, consultants, polluters etc. constantly using words like rationalization, optimization etc. Generally speaking their plans are neither optimizing nor rationalizing anything of benefit to the public. They are optimizing and rationalizing benefits for a very few often at the expense of the public.

The Public Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday February 19, 2020 at 5 pm. in Regional Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 150 Frederick St. Kitchener. What I am most interested in is the finalizing/rationalizing of the boundaries of the "Elmira Township Urban Areas". Allegedly "This change is intended to redirect growth to areas that can be developed more efficiently and cost-effectively on full municipal services." Frankly I believe that that is complete hogwash particularly in regards to the proposed new Elmira Urban Area.

As per the map included with the Public Notice one can see that the plan is to redirect industrial, commercial, and possibly (God help us) residential growth to the east side of Elmira. At the north end of Elmira, the old east side boundary was the Uniroyal Chemical now Lanxess Canada property line. The expanded area further east will include parts of the Stroh farm as well as the Martin farm to the immediate south of the Stroh farm. South of the Martin farm are more agricultural properties which will be impacted.

One of the two biggest problems are the increased flooding in the Canagagigue Creek as it travels south and then primarily east past the Uniroyal Chemical property. The extent of past flooding much less increased future flooding on the east side of Elmira will make everything from road and bridge construction to building construction more costly. The next problem is the apparent intentional hiding and burying of toxic wastes from Uniroyal Chemical currently on the Stroh and Martin properties. These wastes include but are not remotely limited to dioxin/furans, DDT, PCBs, mercury, and lindane. Clear and compelling evidence exists that these toxic liquid wastes flowed from Uniroyal Chemical onto the two east side neighbouring farms. A limited and superficial cleanup of a small part of the Stroh farm took place in 2018. That cleanup at least acknowledged the presence of dioxins/furans and DDT above all provincial and federal guidelines and criteria on the Stroh farm.

To date Lanxess, their consultants GHD, and the Ontario MOE/MECP have refused to do soil testing further south on the Stroh farm. They also have not done to my knowledge any soil testing on the Martin farm. They are terrified, in my opinion, of the results they will find. And of course they are terrified of the costs to clean it all up. I have long suggested that there has been government corruption at various levels involved in the environmental disaster that unfolded here in Elmira. There most certainly has been corruption involved in the failed government "supervised" cleanup over the last thirty years. Incompetence can only be blamed for so long. To my eyes this "rationalization" by our municipal government is but one more step in the corruption process. Decisions that are made for private interests by government rather than made for the public interest are corrupt decisions.

WOOLWICH BIO-EN PUBLIC MEETING

The event was held at Lions Hall in Elmira last evening at 7:30 pm. I would describe it as a very low key event. A few staff from Bio-En were present as was Mr. Chuck Martin, owner. There were many poster boards erected around the hall with descriptions of various aspects of the business. They were helpful and informative. Even more so were the staff present as was Chuck Martin. He answered all my questions as thoroughly as possible and was straightforward about some of the less pleasant aspects of some of the raw materials used to produce methane (such as diapers). Turns out they are not a particularly productive source of methane as there is too much diaper and not enough .... .

I would estimate that during my presence there might have been an additional half a dozen citizens present as well. Some had been involved with the earlier mediation (2012) with the company that resulted in a number of citizen friendly amendments such as regular meetings between a citizens' committee and the company. Sort of a good news/bad news scenario as the committee meets very infrequently now although Mr. Martin advised that the company will meet with them whenever they want. Apparently there generally is a lack of issues and problems which obviously is a good thing.

The company are looking to expand and on the face of it that is both normal and appropriate. The remaining citizens who are less than happy about that say that it's all about location and truck traffic. They are right that the downtown and the Arthur St./Church St. intersection is overcrowded. The other huge issue for them (and should be for all of us?) is air emissions. Diesel fumes are not good for anybody's health. I did hear one citizen last evening very bluntly telling a company staffer that their incoming and outgoing trucks are already exacerbating toxic air emissions and hence no they should not be allowed to expand on that. The citizen is right but I do not know how under current rules, regulations and laws that that could be enforced essentially by penalizing one company out of the hundreds (?) who contribute to the problem.

MORE ON THE DECEMBER 2019 LANXESS PROGRESS REPORT

A couple of days ago I mentioned here in the Advocate some off-site groundwater pumping issues during December 2019. They were not as bad as the November off and on-site pumping failures.

580, 470, 310 Those numbers are the concentrations (parts per billion i.e. ug/l) of chlorobenzene, toluene, and carboxin in groundwater being pumped by on-site well PW5 (municipal aquifer) as well as the upper aquifer wells. Sort of. On-site well PW5 sometimes goes through the same treatment train and other times joins numerous off-site wells for treatment in building 44D. It is concentrations like these and higher which produce anxiety for the future of the Elmira Aquifers with this contamination merely "hydraulically contained" by ongoing and allegedly never ending groundwater pumping.

Lindane and aniline concentrations are decreasing in MISA outlets to the Canagagigue Creek from Lanxess Canada. Ammonia, carboxin and phenolics are not. MISA stands for municipal industrial strategy for abatement. These outlets are supposed to be for cooling and storm water but unfortunately they seem to have been somewhat infiltrated by contaminated groundwater.

Table C.2 continues to mystify with some chemicals having higher Lanxess downstream concentrations of contaminants while others have higher upstream of Lanxess concentrations. Of course if the public, including the most informed public, had the ability to request clarification of the company at public RAC or TAG meetings then perhaps these anomalies could be explained. Only perhaps because colourful and creative narratives are still being handed out at these public meetings by the company and their consultants.

Figure D.1 shows the alleged Surficial Aquifer on Lanxess's north-east corner. The flow direction arrows are still incorrect as even the text in their report admits to flow off-site to the east. It would be nice if they could adjust this Figure to correlate with both their text and with reality. I spent years proving that they were wrong on the east side of their site and no they don't have to acknowledge my contribution but at least acknowledge consu=istently the facts that I proved.

Appendix F may have some real good news although it is hard to have confidence with anything presented by this company and their predecessors on the site. Appendix F appears to show declining levels of Non Aqueous Phase Liquids (primarily Light Napls versus Dense Napls) in shallow wells around Building 15. This of course is the building from which 10,000 to 40,000 gallons of toluene leaked decades ago and which Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess all felt that serious cleanup would be too onerous. Instead they went back to the tried, true, slow, and less expensive pumping and treating. The real question is how much of this was collected and treated versus discharged either as dissolved or as free phase liquids into the creek.

P.S. to date Lanxess appear unwilling to provide any new date by which they feel they will have restored the Elmira Aquifers to drinking water standards. The old date of 2028 is universally confirmed as not going to happen.

OFFICER JAMES FORCILLO RECEIVES EARLY PAROLE

Yes this is the case where the officer shot Sammy Yatin eight times while he was on a streetcar by himself clearly experiencing some form of mental/emotional breakdown. Forcillo's first three shots hit the young man and he collapsed on the streetcar. After several seconds Officer Forcillo opened fire six more times hitting the already prone and dying Yatim with five of those six followup shots. Yatim was alone on the streetcar. He was not advancing on any of the multiple officers present. He was not an imminent threat to anyone but himself. Officer Forcillo remarkably was convicted of attempted murder despite Mr. Yatim dying from his gunshot wounds all inflicted by Officer Forcillo. All of these facts are undisputed due to multiple video evidence at the scene which was later broadcast to the public.

Of academic interest only is the actions of another officer who immediately after the multiple shooting of Yatim ran to the body and tasered it. One must assume that that officer was preparing the excuse for the shooting by allowing either Officer Forcillo or his superiors to be able to claim that gee we tasered Mr. Yatim but as that wasn't effective we had to shoot him. Not a good day for police credibility on any front.

Officer Forcillo received a six year prison sentence for attempted murder but served only twenty months. He was granted early parole and according to Peter Rosenthal, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto, his actions post conviction alone should have disqualified him from so doing. These included a conviction for perjury as well as for violating his bail conditions.

The title of this article in the January 24/20 Waterloo Region Record is "Early parole for Forcillo sends terrible message to public, police".

FINISHING UP REPORTING ON THE TAG MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2020

Well first of all let's have some upcoming dates. TAG + another Webinar are on February 6 and February 27, 2020 at 6:30 pm. The Webinars will again be about Risk Assessments. In my opinion these Webinars describe what either Risk Assessments or Site Specific Risk Assessments are supposed to be, not what they end up being in the hands of self-interested parties in charge of them. Lastly there is a RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) scheduled for April 2/20 at 6 pm.

Linda Dickson of TAG (Technical Advisory Group) discussed the November and December Progress Reports. She indicated the pumping problems in November with off-site pumping wells W6B, W9 and with on-site pumping well PW4. By December the on-site well PW4 was back up and running although the same off-site wells as November were not. Linda indicated that the just off-site Sentry wells to the west of Lanxess had increasing concentrations of chlorobenzene and NDMA due to the loss of on-site hydraulic containment occasioned by PW4 not operating in November.

There has been a new suggestion by GHD that "pulse pumping" of E7 may improve the removal of contamination in surrounding soils. It appears as if they discovered this by accident which I don't find particularly confidence inspiring. After a couple of slowdowns in pumping well E7 at the south end of Elmira, they found that the following month more contaminant mass was removed than normal. The theory is that stop and start pumping may somehow accelerate contaminant mass removal. Of course as usual there was absolutely no technical reports or literature distributed to back up these claims. Is this just more junk science and psuedo science? Is this just an excuse for them to get away with decreased pumping at E7 along with so many other pumping wells? Hard to say. Time will usually tell although the cost is usually way too high. Both Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach and Linda of TAG wanted to know why TAG were not informed sooner about this new pumping routine.

MORE OF THE THURSDAY EVENING (Jan. 23/20) TAG MEETING

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I believe that the majority of TAG members are good, honest and decent people. Since the very first UPAC (Uniroyal Public Advisory Committee) in January 1992 there have always been one, two or three individuals with self-serving agendas and a willingness to make deals not always in the public interest. Heck we even had one such member foisted upon the best CPAC ever (2010 - Aug.2015) for a while. This current TAG now not only have honest individuals but they also have experts involved with David, Katerina and Dustin. No offense intended to the other members who are strong in their own right. There is however still a problem although the blame does not lie with the TAG members. I have been noticing a disquieting trend of late. The one TAG member of questionable deal making and inappropriate support for Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura/Lanxess has not been assisting appropriately with historical questions that arise. Last evening was yet another example with her question as to whether or not well PW4 was the only on-site deep (municipal aquifer) pumping well. I spoke up from the gallery, contrary to the corrupt and discriminatory Woolwich rules, and assisted Susan on that question and advised her (& TAG) that there were currently two on-site deep pumping wells namely PW4 and PW5. This information at my fingertips was confirmed several minutes later when Linda Dickson read the same from one of the monthly Progress Reports.

My shock arose from the fact that if one is keeping abreast of current Elmira/Lanxess affairs then one reads the monthly Progress Reports which month in and month out specifically states that there are two on-site wells (PW4 & PW5) above and beyond the multiple Upper Aquifer wells. What the heck is going on? Now none of the other members, or Chair, appeared able to answer the question. Certainly even the new hydrogeologists on TAG did not seem to have that basic information at their fingertips. This lack of first hand historical facts and data certainly is inevitable but not yet. I also hesitate to suggest that age is affecting anyone's memory especially Susan as she and I are of the same age. That said yes I freely admit that my memory at age 70 is not the almost photographic memory it once was. It seems clear that the removal of myself and other CPAC and SWAT members in late 2015 was intentionally done to remove historical knowledge and perspectives as well as to assist Chemtura/Lanxess in avoiding dealing with or even acknowledging their past failures.

Jaimie Peznick (sp.?) of Lanxess presented to TAG the new Worst Case Scenario. For many years the Worst Case Scenario has been a large release of Anyhdrous Ammonia. That compound is no longer being used on site. The new Worst Case Scenario is a major fire at one of their tank farms. These tank farms are concrete areas with large usually vertical tanks on them containing various toxic chemicals that are used in Lanxess's production processes. When these chemicals catch fire, and solvents are notoriously flammable, they produce toxic smoke. The actual toxicity is unknown until after a fire and after air samples taken in the smoke plume have been analysed and then studied. Even then the toxicity is highly subjective based upon air criteria, just like water and soil criteria, being based upon the false scenario of only one toxic contaminant at a time being found in the medium (air, water, soil).

Joe Kelly, Susan Bryant and Tiffany Svensson all had input regarding two recent reports dealing with the Canagagigue Creek. These were the Revised Conceptual Site Model for the creek and the Re-Evaluation of Canagagigue Creek Contaminants of Potential Concern (COPC). Joe emphasized the mealy mouthed wording such as the constant use of "may have", "maybe", "may require", "not associated with historic conditions" etc. He also criticized Lanxess denying the possibility that the PCBs in the creek came from their site which used to have a sub-station (hydro?) on their property with PCBs likely in the ballasts and perhaps transformers. Susan spoke at length about the insecticide lindane which was used for decades at Uniroyal and corporate successors. It is a highly toxic chemical and Lanxess's marginalization of it's significance in the Creek is inappropriate. Susan also discussed false claims by Lanxess regarding the extent of remediation of a number of former toxic waste pits on site. Tiffany suggested that she found too many comments and conclusion by Lanxess's consultants minimizing the severity of the environmental problems with little or no scientific backup. In other words the text in places was much too subjective versus being objective. This minimizing specifically is in regards to the number and variety of contaminants of potentail concern in the Creek.

This is the bulk of Thursday evening's meeting although Linda Dickson spoke at length about the November and December (2019) Progress Reports. I may include that in Monday's posting here.

LAST EVENING'S TAG MEETING

TAG - Technical Advisory Group

We were presented with a 40 minute Webinar (web based seminar) last evening. Despite my critical comments here beforehand, in fact the Webinar was very informative. It did start off however very clearly advising that polluters have two options. Option 1 is to remediate the contamination to the legislated numerical standards and criteria. Option 2 is to conduct a Risk Assessment and then to "manage" the excess risk. The gentleman presenting the webinar was very clear that Option 2 was more "cost effective". Cost effective in plain English means cheaper. He also advised that there were some liabilities with Option 2 namely ongoing monitoring and maintenance of any engineered methods used to "manage" the risk. Also he had the good graces to advise that past stigmas around owning contaminated sites have dissipated dramatically.

The webinar also referenced the Risk Paradigm. This is three intertwined circles representing Contaminants in one circle, Receptors in another and Exposure Pathway in the third. Where these three circles all overlap is supposed to be the amount or extent of Risk. In fact this Paradigm makes it very clear to me that polluters (and sometimes their regulators) have golden opportunities to fudge the entire process. They can artificially reduce the number and extent of contaminants by arbitrary screening methods. They can increase the Method Detection Limits (MDL) higher than the provincial/federal criteria and standards in order to miss huge numbers of toxic chemical exceedances. They can use unsatisfactory sampling methods such as shovels versus core samplers which miss much of the fines during creek bed sampling. The fines are where the hydrophobic compounds such as DDT, Dioxins, PCBs etc. are normally found. As far as Receptors go it is child's play to ignore higher up the food chain receptors of highly contaminated fish and benthic organisms. By simply not testing tissues of higher predators there will be no scientific evidence of further bio-accumulation of toxins from the creek. Similarly Exposure Pathways can also be fudged mercilessly. All three of these circles need to be investigated and researched by independent and unbiased parties. Simply allowing the polluter to hire his longtime, highly paid consultants with a huge conflict of interest is ridiculous.

It boils down to trust and confidence. If one has had thirty years of being ignored, lied to and deceived both in person and in report after report produced by parties working on behalf of the polluter then you will receive absolute crap. That is the reality and exactly what has happened in Elmira, Ontario. It continues in the supporting documents being produced for this Risk Assessment and will continue in the Risk Assessment itself. I believe that it is possible for an unbiased but knowledgeable party without self-interest involved to produce a relatively good Risk Assessment. Those are not the circumstances regarding the Uniroyal/Lanxess Site Specific Risk Assessment.

Further details on other matters from last evening's TAG meeting will be presented here tomorrow.