ARE THE REGION SPEAKING TO THE CONTAMINATION FOUND UNDER CHURCH ST THIS TUESDAY?

 I wish I could confirm that information passed on to me recently. I've been on-line twice looking at the Agenda for this Tuesday's Committee of the Whole meeting of Woolwich Council. I don't see anything on the Agenda even remotely suggesting a Delegation or Presentation by the Region of Waterloo yet my reliable source tells me otherwise. Is this just one more way to keep these issues on the downlow? i.e. don't put them on the Agenda until the last minute if at all.

My experience is that sometimes the size of the whopper is in direct proportion to the size of the audience present. Hence if the Region do not see many at this Council meeting, which I believe is now supposed to be open for the public without the asinine pre-registering,  then they might be encouraged to continue to bluff their way forward. On the other hand maybe they've already decided to bite the bullet and realize that the only thing worse than admitting that Uniroyal Chemical's contamination indeed migrated off-site more than just to the south-west would be to be caught red handed lying about it. Personally I and our authorities know that Uniroyal's contamination leaked eastwards onto the Stroh farm and probably westwards onto the former Nutrite/Yara property. No surprise to me if it also leaked off-site northwards.

 

MAYBE THINGS ARE HEATING UP IN GUELPH AS WELL

 I've been in possession of some outdoor subsurface vapour readings for a while now.  As of today I've got some indoor vapour readings and I find them alarming. Interestingly the MECP had only sent TCE (trichloroethylene) indoor readings to this particular homeowner. He requested the complete lab reports and received them promptly. They tell a somewhat different story with a multitude of low level readings from quite a few chemicals of differing toxicities. The outdoor readings are from vapour probes installed in streets and possibly boulevards for numerous streets between the former IMICO foundry on Beverley St. and the Eramosa River. These outdoor vapour probes have concentrations in excess of the criteria for TCE routinely and for Vinyl Chloride (VC) a breakdown product of TCE just once.

The problem arises with the fact of the very high readings in the soils around these older homes. Vapour intrusion occurs depending upon the integrity of the poured concrete foundations or even the concrete block foundations in older homes. Also any seals around in and out going water pipes, sewer pipes, elecrical, gas etc. can permit toxic vapours to enter if they are presnt in the nearby soils. Keep in mind each and every house will have greater or lesser resistance to vapor intrusion based upon the factors listed as well how many windows are open etc.

SO FAR I HAVE ZERO DIRECT ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS TO THE REGION OF WATERLOO

 Yes I did receive and read about 1200 pages of information pertaining to the reconstruction of Church St. East but as indicated here my and other CPAC members questions were not addressed. My response yesterday to Boris Latkovic was critical but in hindsight instead of leaping into the reports offered and then being disappointed that they did not address our legitimate concerns and questions perhaps I should have been less trusting that the answers were within. 

So where are we now? We have a ton of written info, lab analyses and more that are somewhat interesting in their own right. Also I believe that the 1200 pages shows a bias against Uniroyal Chemical being the source of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes) chemicals in nearby soils along with PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) such as benzoapyrene, anthracene etc. This is my opinion based less upon what is specifically said and more upon that which is not said. Uniroyal Chemical is not named nor given it's due as a MAJOR polluter on a major scale and all the while it shares several hundred metres of property line with Church St. (Hwy #86).

So was Boris simply stalling and deflecting by sending me the 1200 pages or is he really a nice guy at heart who knows how much I generally enjoy reading technical reports? Should I have been upset with him when none of the answers were clearly given in the reports? Maybe my attitude should be that his and the Regions (& MECP) failures to date to answer simple questions actually is the answers themselves. For example I've asked if there has been any lab analysis proving that coal tar macadam (paving) was present. The non answer means NO!. Has there been any technical reports, lab analyses etc. that definitively tie the benzene found in nearby soils to the alleged coal tar paving? The non answer combined with the NO answer to the presence of coal tar paving means NO! Does the Region have any legitimate technical reports that prove that old, buried coal tar paving leaches toxic chemicals into the natural environment? Again the non answer means NO!

Same thing with PAHs. Has the Region got any proof that they came from alleged only coal tar paving (macadam)? The non answer is NO! etc. etc. So how long can the Region and the MECP stonewall us? Are they furiously writing up new reports as we speak to justify their verbal claims? Is it possible that they actually believe their own theory or have they been caught red handed lying to the public presumably to assist in the ongoing coverup around the Uniroyal Chemical and Lanxess Canada mickey mouse cleanup? Or is there some other reason why they are all being so obtuse on this matter? I do not see general disrespect or apathy as being the cause. Right now their credibility is on the line as is the MECP's yet again.   

LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE - TOO STRONG MAYBE?

Environmentalist Pat Potter I'm told used to attend public environmental meetings wearing a T shirt that stated "They all lie."  Well now that's pretty blunt isn't it? My understanding was that she was literally referring to every party and stakeholder at the meeting from the Ministry of Environment, to the owners of contaminated sites, to consultants representing different parties...well you get the picture. 

So do I believe that either the Region of Waterloo or the Ministry of Environment have recently lied to us the public? Well something sure seems off that much I can say. Now I haven't sent follow up questions yet back to the Region but if I did they would go something like this: "Where the #uck is the coal tar paving?" "Where the &uck is the tar macadam?"  "Where the *uck is the old road layer that I was told about?"

Approximately 1200 pages later and on page 10 is a brief statement advising that only two boreholes have contaminated soil namely BH22-7 and BH22-8. This contaminated soil has a petroleum smell and also is stained black.  No word in the text about coal tar paving. No word in the Borehole Logs or Stratigraphic report about old, buried asphalt or coal tar pavement. Nothing in the various Tables or Figures describing anything at all such as a former road being either found or dug up. The Borehole Logs refer to every day normal clay, sand, gravel, topsoil and silt. These Borehols extend to about 4.5 metres below ground surface and I repeat: NOTHING!

So did Boris Latkovic of the Region of Waterloo lie to me, Dr. Holt, the public etc? I guess I'll send him a sharp e-mail asking that question. I wonder if  I will believe his answer?   

THE REGION (BORIS) COMES THROUGH WITH > 1200 PAGES OF DATA & REPORTS

Well at first glance (ha!) benzene was detected along with several other chemicals. Granted it is early days yet but so far I haven't found any claims of coal tar paving being found which is odd when you recall the e-mail from Lubna (MECP) claiming that coal tar paving was the problem and the source of benzene leaching into the soil which was removed.  The really good news right now of course is that the Region have provided almost everything requested plus lots more. 

I have sent a Thank You e-mail to Boris (RMOW) effusively expressing my appreciation. That e-mail of course was cc'd to all the other stakeholders including CPAC, Woolwich Observer, public, four Woolwich councillors, TAG, RMOW and MECP. As part of their road repairs/updates the Region (RMOW) looked at local conditions and businesses that could have environmental consequences upon their project and hence some of their soil testing was adjusted accordingly. To date I can not yet be certain if any signature Uniroyal chemicals were included in some of their testing. 

Indirectly I suspect that at least a couple of CPAC's (Citizens Public Advisory Committee) questions remain unanswered such as Rich Clausi's question as to whether the remaining soil in place has been certified as clean.. Also to date I have not seen any rationale or scientific reports suggesting that old, buried coal tar paving can leach benzene or other compounds into the natural environment. Also I see no explanation or suggestions to date in the reports attributing the benzene to coal tar paving or to anything else. Of course I still have lots of reading to go so I'd better get at it.

THIS IS WHAT SOME IN GUELPH THINK OF THE ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT (MECP)

 Two companies located adjacent to a grossly contaminated site (IMICO) on Beverley St. appealed a Certificate of Property Use (CPU)  document issued to the City of Guelph who are the owners of the former International Malleable Iron Co. (IMICO). From what I can make out a CPU possibly is issued either after or instead of a Record of Site Condition (RSC) which the MECP usually issues to properties that have been allegedly adequately cleaned up and are ready for redevelopment. Personally I'm not impressed with RSC's so you can imagine what I think of CPUs which I guess are supposed to have conditions attached acknowledging a certain level of further monitoring or work required.

The two companies at 10 Kingsmill Dr. and 490 York St. are downgradient from IMICO and apparently have had trichloroethylene (TCE) migrating from IMICO onto their properties for a long time. IMICO has been studied and researched to death for over thirty years with 490 York much less and 10 Kingsmill even less than 490 York. That said as I understand it there have bee Phase 1 and Phase 2  Environmental Assessments done on those properties as well as some monitoring wells installed. 

 The Kingsmill and York St. properties have won Leave To Appeal from the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). They will be appealing the CPU issued to the City of Guelph for their IMICO property on the basis that no reasonable person (i.e. MECP Director) would have issued such a weak and unreasonable document. Apparently the CPU simply fails to address the known migration of TCE onto these two other properties. Keep in mind that this is the Decision of the OLT. You should read the other comments and statements including bias, incompetence, 

Earlier on these companies claimed that the MECP were retaliating against their actions of appealing the CPU to the OLT by issuing both Provincial Officer's Reports against them followed by a Director's Order demanding increased significant cost and work be done on their properties allegedly to get a better understanding as to whether or how much they may have contributed to their own on-site contamination.  These companies and their lawyers are taking no prisoners and their allegations of personal vindictiveness and perhaps even bullying by the MECP are quite shocking.  

MINISTRY & REGION HIDING FROM STAKEHOLDERS? IMICO (GUELPH) IS THE FUTURE OF UNIROYAL IN ELMIRA?

 Still waiting. Frankly I am doubtful that all the documents requested from the Region/MECP actually exist. Seriously what is to stop the Region from finding off-site (northwards) Uniroyal Chemical pollution , reporting it to the MECP and asking for direction. Now keep in mind that the Region also signed a private agreement with the Ministry of Environment (MOE) back in the day. This agreement likely covered extra costs above the water pipeline paid by Uniroyal and may even have covered various unexpected down the road issues say like new off-site pollution as an example. 

So with their agreement in mind would the Region balk if the MECP suggested look let's not raise a can of woms (i.e. northward off-site contamination), let's just blame old, buried coal tar paving for the necessary cleanup? Now of course if I'm wrong then then both parties should be very quickly coughing up the lab reports they claim to have. Now there is yet another scenario possible. Maybe coal tar paving was found and removed out of an abundance of caution and both parties have simply lied to the public about having sent any soil samples or more for labratory testing.  

Swinging over to IMICO (International Malleable Iron Co.) they are currently subject to an OLT (ontario Land Tribunal) hearing regarding the MECP's three decades plus mishandling of toxic contamination. They and the City of Guelph who own the property want it developed into "affordable housing"  and they appear willing to jump through all kinds of hoops and loops, not necessarily in the public interest, in my opinion. This "affordable housing" even includes no residential homes below the second floor (i.e. off the ground) as well as more contaminated areas being used for common outdoor areas ( park, picnic, playgrounds?). It's hard to imagine DDT and dioxin contaminated soils here in Elmira being developed into residential housing but IMICO has petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and trichloroethylene (TCE) in their subsurface so who knows.