Tuesday, October 17, 2017


Lobbying and arm twisting are their forte. Getting rid of informed and honest, strong personalities is their backup plan. They did it possibly with Susan Rupert and definitely with Richard Clausi, Esther Thur, Henry Regier and myself. There probably have been others that I don't know about both earlier and since.They do it through scheming and manipulating behind honest people's backs. To your face their behaviour is polite and respectful while at the same time they are working diligently behind your back to weaken your reputation and support. They are self-serving and egotistical. They look for weaker areas and attack them when you don't even know they are doing so, until it's too late. They are sneak attackers. They are sociopaths and lying cowards. Their purpose is power, control and self aggrandizement. Of course I am also speaking about leaders of political parties. They literally keep their heads down, their egos in check and wear their humility on their sleeves. Until the time is ripe. It's an immense character flaw but at least in politics the vast majority of people around you are in no moral or ethical position to criticize.

The world is full of them albeit they are a very small minority. It takes a real piece of work to be scheming against a loyal friend
and colleague who is supporting you and the cause at the same time as you are planning to harm them behind their backs. To be successful this kind of sociopath must be clever. I wonder how happy they actually end up. Does each successful sneak attack and "victory" build on their thrill or diminish it over time and further such nasty "successes"?

This has come up due to a recent history lesson from a friend and colleague. He sent a ten year old report to CPAC members plus a few others. This report was a detailed comment upon the events at CPAC a decade ago. His report is dated November 19, 2007. Independent reports like this one are one of the things that manipulators can not control. Yes the manipulators may have survived their impact a decade ago because other voting members were to busy or lazy to pay attention, but these reports have a life of their own. They can come back to haunt and bite guilty parties in the butt. I expect that this is but one that will do that. It will be included in my book about Elmira which is yet a considerable way down the road.

Monday, October 16, 2017


Public consultation has been destroyed in Elmira, Ontario and the guilty parties are all around us. Yes Mark and Sandy are front and centre but most importantly is the Ontario Ministry of the Environment & Climate Change. Next are the media and finally there are the citizens of Woolwich Township themselves. Literally for many years only one media outlet routinely covered CPAC meetings and that was the Elmira Independent. Occasionally the Waterloo Region Record would carry a story about the Aquifer cleanup progress or the lack thereof here in Elmira. Similar with CKCO-TV. The other local paper at the time absolutely ignored CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) which later morphed into the Citizens Public Advisory Committee. Regarding Woolwich citizens what was needed was greater support of the only media that routinely covered public CPAC meetings and then published the news in their paper. It didn't happen and the Elmira Independent is now history.

The MOECC mandated some form of public consultation back in 1991 in order to regain the confidence of the people of Elmira. Clearly decades of lying and puffery as to how the Elmira drinking waters were being protected by the province via the MOE was now obvious to all. Therefore UPAC (Uniroyal Public advisory Committee) was formed with assistance from Woolwich Township. The Township were careful however to keep the committee independent and at arms length. They also had little or no credibility due to their failures to push Uniroyal and the M.O.E. much harder over the previous decades. Basically any citizens or groups who had the interest and time were given a seat at the table. Nowadays the Township have usurped this citizen independence albeit they did it via Pat Mclean, the Chair of CPAC and Councillor, back in 2000. The rest of the UPAC/CPAC folks were lulled into a false sense of complacency by Pat and agreed to becoming a committee of Council. How has that worked out you idiots? The last two Councils have preemptorily trashed the old CPAC members including Pat herself in 2011. She is indeed a manipulator and always has been.

The last public meeting was held on September 7, 2017. This was a RAC (Remediation Advisory Committee) meeting and as usual had zero input from the public. Appointed citizens by Council to the complete exclusion of other interested and knowledgable citizens is absolutely no one's definition of public consultation. A refusal to take questions from the gallery is a mockery of public consultation. The next public meeting is a TAG (Technical Advisory Group) meeting on November 16, 2017. It will likely be more of the same with the public denied permission to speak or ask questions. News flash Council and other pompous public officials. Citizens do not require your permission to speak out about public interest matters. You have broken public consultation. Either you fix it or we will.

Saturday, October 14, 2017


DNAPLS were an ongoing topic throughout 2006 at CPAC despite Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura's reluctance to do so. The 2003 Request For Action presented by the Soil & Water Committee to CPAC, the Ministry and Crompton had put DNAPLS back on the Agenda. That being said I knew that they had to be a bit of a difficult topic for Susan Bryant based upon APT's bizarre embracing of the DNAPL status quo after the Ministry (M.O.E.) accepted Uniroyal/Conestoga Rovers' position in a December 10, 1993 letter. APT's quiet acceptance under the leadership of Sylvia Berg (Susan was in India) had initiated the split with APT of Richard Clausi, Esther Thur and myself. In fact Sylvia's DNAPL position alone would not have caused the split. It was her winner take all, hostile attitude, instantly displayed when she won the APT vote that did it for me. She felt emboldened to take punitive action against myself within APT.

So in December 2006 Susan invited me to attend a meeting along with Pat Mclean and Wilf Ruland at the University of Waterloo. Keep in mind that I was the CPAC "expert" on DNAPLS based both upon my destruction of Brian Beatty over his DNAPL misquote way back about 1992 as well as my plain hard work, research and effort. The topic was DNAPLS and we were meeting with two world renowned experts in the field namely Dr. John Cherry and Dr. Beth Parker. What a breathe of fresh air. These were two people only interested in the evidence and the facts as I was. There were no political ramifications, stroking of egos or other peripheral considerations. The facts and only the facts. Wilf Ruland had actually been taught by Dr. Cherry and considered him a bit of a mentor.

Now prior to the meeting, including the drive together to the university, I was getting an odd impression. It seemed to me that Pat, Wilf and Susan viewed this meeting possibly as a confirmation that DNAPLS were best left alone in the subsurface. Considering that Susan, Fred Hager, Henry Regier and I had all worked together on the 2003 Request For Action strongly advising source removal of free phase and possibly residual DNAPLS, this seemed odd to me. Regardless we were soon talking to the two Doctors plus they gave out a number of their various recent publications on the subject. Well...! Yes Wilf was correct in that the old understanding back when he was attending University was that sub-surface DNAPLS if disturbed might be remobilized and move further as in either vertically or laterally thus compounding the groundwater contamination problem. However both Dr. Cherry and Dr. Parker emphasized that new thinking was unanimous that DNAPLS, especially free phase, needed to be either removed physically from the subsurface where possible or somehow either physically encapsulated or chemically broken down. Otherwise their long term dissolution into the groundwater would contaminate it above drinking water standards either for decades or even centuries.

The four of us left the meeting with me I believe almost floating above the ground. I was ecstatic whereas the other three were incredibly subdued. What the hell? Their downcast attitudes I found very strange. At the meeting when the technical DNAPL publications were handed out the other three handed them all to me stating that I could read them all first. Later I tried to give them to Susan for her to read but she never wanted them. It was an eye opening, albeit too late.

All through the rest of 2007 I was asking Pat and Susan when we were going to make a presentation to CPAC about this meeting. IT NEVER HAPPENED! Wilf, Pat and Susan NEVER to my knowledge have told anyone at CPAC or the public about this meeting. It was almost as if they had made previous commitments either to Uniroyal/Chemtura or the M.O.E. that they would back off of the DNAPL file despite the 2003 CPAC Request For Action. This reminded me of Sylvia Berg asking me alone to sign APTs critique of the M.O.E. December 10, 1993 letter accepting Uniroyal's DNAPL position despite the fact that both she and Glenys McMullen were involved in that critique with me. Both scenarios were and are bizarre and have often led me to suspect the worst.

Was the Ammonia Treatment System (ATS) Certificate of Approval merely a red herring by Pat and Susan to get me off of CPAC? At the time I found their (ATS) position ridiculous especially after I had Wilf Ruland in my home and showed him my groundwater data and borehole logs indicating that CH97 was totally inappropriate to be one of the "well pairs". Wilf had absolutely no dispute with my data and its' interpretation. I could tell that he was trying not to be over enthusiastic about my discovery but I repeat he had zero objections or disagreement with the facts presented to him. Then after I filed my appeal to the Environmental Review Tribunal I willingly agreed to a sitdown with Chemtura, CRA (Conestoga Rovers) and the Ontario M.O.E. to see if a meeting of the minds could occur. The meeting was a sham and absolutely not in good faith by the other three parties. Wilf presented my information regarding CH97 being an inappropriate well to use as a "well pair" because the screen of the well was drawing both Municipal Aquifer (MU) water as well as Upper Aquifer water into it. There was no aquitard between the two aquifers. This would artificially raise the groundwater level in the MU thus incorrectly "proving" that there was hydraulic containment on site because just off-site well (CH97) had a higher groundwater reading in the MU than the corresponding on site well.

Wilf tried I'll give him that. CRA simply ignored his facts. They arrogantly as always advised him and us that they were right. There wasn't even so much as a hint that Wilf's (ie. mine) points had any merit whatsoever. Wilf shut up. I did not. I bluntly as is my way when dealing with arrogant liars told them off. I advised that my appeal would be immediately reinstated the next day and that I didn't appreciate having my time wasted by parties with zero intent to either listen or respond factually to our position. Whether in agreement or disagreement they said no with absolutely zero technical reasons why they were allegedly right and we were allegedly wrong.

This is the background for Wilf's further plunging of Pat and Susan's knife into my back. Wilf then went to CPAC and advised them that he will no longer work for CPAC as long as I am a member. Wilf claimed that my "behaviour" at this meeting attended by Dr. Henry Regier, Wilf, Pat , Susan, CRA, Chemtura and the M.O.E. was objectionable. Apparently unlike Wilf I am not deferential enough when being lied to by intellectual prostitutes. Unlike Wilf I will not be treated disrespectfully and accept it just because the speaker has more credentials than I. Unlike Wilf I will not kiss the asses of powerful people hoping for future contracts from the M.O.E. and or collaborative, paid private meetings with CRA and Chemtura. Furthermore Wilf apparently viewed Pat and Susan as part of his future paid consulting. I strongly advise Wilf Ruland to stay the hell out of Elmira in the future. His behaviour is beneath contempt.

Friday, October 13, 2017


His start was auspicious here in Elmira. APT invited him to comment on groundwater issues after the Elmira Water Crisis started in November 1989. He was a self proclaimed consultant for "citizens" groups. Surprisingly to me he was paid briefly (?) by the Ontario Ministry of Environment to give a Hydrogeology 101 course to Sylvia Berg, Susan Bryant and myself.

Wilf very early on was extremely careful not to offend. He was particularly careful not to offend Uniroyal Chemical, their consultants (CRA & Morrison-Beatty) and the Ontario M.O.E.. In those days that was not easy to do because it almost seemed on a daily basis that we were discovering deceptions and lies from those three groups.

Over the years from 1990 until 2007 Wilf's role changed. Initially he was strictly about groundwater and contaminant flow. His Terms of Reference were never made clear despite Dr. Henry Regier repeatedly asking for specifics. Specifics such as how much he was paid and by whom. CPAC Chair, Pat McLean, did obtain some funding from Woolwich Council for Wilf's work in reviewing a few Crompton/Conestoga Rovers reports. I believe that early on APT paid him money for his expertise which was appropriate. What happened later on however was not appropriate as in money is the root of all evil type of inappropriate.

Wilf would be called in on occasion by either Pat or Susan. Often we wouldn't see Wilf for a period of two or three years and then he would be there giving his opinion on this or that issue, strategy or proposal by Uniroyal/Crompton. It was not inaccurate to suggest that he was parachuted in for specific issues. Time and time again I would see and hear him at a CPAC meeting politely and deferentially suggest that a Conestoga Rovers (CRA) report may have missed this point or that fact and hence their Conclusions needed an adjustment. Time and time again CRA would respond by thanking Wilf for his input but that no he was wrong, they were right and the matter was settled. Never did I see Wilf confront them. Never did I see Wilf put his foot down after a typical exhibition of CRA's arrogance. Henry and I while appreciating Wilf's technical expertise were often disappointed with his lack of firmness and resolve in the face of Uniroyal/Crompton and CRA intransigence.

It became more apparent over time that Wilf was not so much representing CPAC as he was representing those that either paid him or through whom he got paid. That would be Pat and Susan. The most glaring example was in regards to DNAPLS (dense non-aqueous phase liquids). While privately he would agree that CRA had not proven their case that only residual DNAPL remained on site versus Free Phase DNAPLS; again he seemed reluctant to ever press this point at public CPAC meetings. Also Wilf became more critical of those who exhibited a style somewhat blunter and more direct than his. Wilf was a hired consultant, no more and no less. He was supposed to be representing me as a voting CPAC member not projecting his never offend/never confront style upon his clients of which ostensibly I was one.

It got much worse with Wilf as a consultant actually directly involving himself in a disagreement of members within CPAC. I have no doubt that he was invited or induced to do so by those who had brought him to the party and were paying his wages. It was a gross conflict of interest for him to attempt to influence the internal CPAC decision between Pat, Susan and myself over the Ammonia Treatment System Certificate of Approval; but he did so nevertheless to his shame. I have often wondered since with his extremely limited appearances in the last decade whether or not he finally realized how inappropriate his behaviour and input was on that matter.

There will be more specifics on this matter in tomorrow's posting.

Thursday, October 12, 2017


In the August 28, 2001 K-W Record we are advised by Bob Burtt that Uniroyal had their third spill in three weeks. Wow I'll bet they don't brag about those kinds of records they've set. A product known as Naugard 445 leaked from Buiklding # 28 on site.

On September 1, 2001 Susan Bryant wrote an excellent Guest column in the Woolwich Observer. She described a CPAC meeting held at Uniroyal/Crompton with a plant tour included. We were supposed to be seeing some of the changes made to reduce air emissions. To the shock of CPAC they saw an open concrete pit where sludge from Crompton's waste water treatment system was sitting, stewing in the sun. There was also a big open vat where the sludge was being dewatered. These were outdoor processes completely unenclosed with zero air emission controls. The stench was the same awful stench that occasionally engulfs Duke St.. Keep in mind that this was occurring three years after the initial 1998 summertime "fumigations" that had netted Uniroyal Chemical a $168,000 fine. Clearly for them merely a cost of doing business. On August 31, 2001 Julie Sawyer of the Elmira Independent reported on the same matter. The on-site water treatment is located at the southern end of the site. Shannon Purves-Smith of APT identified the stench as the smell that residents on Duke St. had long been complaining about. She described it as the smell of 100 full outhouses. "It should be enclosed, covered up." Shannon stated.

The October 27, 2001 Woolwich Observer published an article titled "Elmira fertilizer firm faces M.O.E. Control Order". Nutrite (Hydro Agri) later called Yara were ordered to clean up ammonia which they had introduced into the groundwater from their site immediately west of Uniroyal/Crompton. Bill Dunbar the manager at the time of Nutrite wasn't admitting anything.

In regards to air sampling, the Elmira Independent in October 2001 somewhat incorrectly suggested that Ron Campbell of Acute Environmental would be taking the lead on air sampling off-site. Presumably this was to lessen the load on the volunteers who had been doing it for some time. Both Uniroyal and Shannon Purves-Smith expressed their agreement with the plan. Unfortunately it fell through although no media reports followed with the reasons why. Ron years later was an excellent, environmentally experienced member of CPAC from 2010 till 2015. His technical experience and his personal integrity were and are a huge boost to CPAC then and now.

In the K-W Record Bob Burtt reported on a CPAC meeting dealing in part with Lindane, a Uniroyal pesticide. Ron Ormson of CPAC stated "Lindane is a big issue in this community and there is a lot of evidence to suggest it is very dangerous." Esther Thur of both CPAC and the Elmira Environmental Hazards Team (EH-Team) had done considerable research on Lindane and was in complete agreement with Ron's position. Yours truly commented on Uniroyal/Crompton's lawsuit against the Canadian government by suggesting that in light of the government review of Lindane ending in the spring, Crompton's $100 million lawsuit was ridiculous.

As far back as December 2001 plans were underway for a new ammonia treatment system. The building costs would be assessed as 1/3 from the Province of Ontario and 2/3 from Crompton and Nutrite. Operating costs would be 50/50 between the province and the two companies. A pretty good deal for two polluters don't you think in having the taxpayers subsidize their cleanup costs yet again.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017


O.K. firstly I'm going to fess up. The above title is a bit of a misnomer (I hope). My experience is that people of either gender... oops I believe that's no longer politically correct...ahem people of all genders... generally react poorly on a personal basis if given any authority at all. Whether the electorate prefer their face, voice, public persona or a simple 15 second sound bite on television; being elected to office is not some kind of pronouncement from on high that you are a good candidate much less the best available. Sorry to burst a few balloons there folks. Secondly once elected or appointed to a position of authority over anyone or anything, then these people tend to appoint others beneath them on the same or similar basis. In other words rarely is the best, most intelligent, most qualified and most dedicated ever appointed to any position. Those you appoint beneath you need to know their place (below you) and always be prepared to support you on all matters that you espouse. Again sorry for bursting a few balloons there folks.

The first time I learned that Pat Mclean was a typical, unethical politician was when we were discussing privately with Susan Bryant an upcoming CPAC matter, possibly a Certificate of Approval from the M.O.E.. Up to this time I viewed the Chair of UPAC/CPAC as simply being an onerous, secretarial type position. Certainly nothing of any status and it seemed appropriate that Pat having the absolute least amount of technical or historical knowledge regarding Uniroyal Chemical should with her political experience conduct meetings and organize Agendas and followup meetings. Well! Pat felt, I learned in 2006 or early 2007, that she was in charge and in control of CPAC. Excuse me but I was there with an Independent vote on all matters as an equal member and I deferred to no one while at the same time was always very careful to never publicly undermine or speak critically of my other fellow citizen appointees to UPAC then CPAC. I later learned there was a backroom deal between Pat, Sandy and Susan. I was asked to attend a private meeting with some Woolwich Council members and David Brenneman in early 2008. This I did only to find Sandy stickhandling around my very clear and straightforward question as to whether or not she had ever seen or heard me undermine or criticize any CPAC member at the public meetings. She sat beside me as Council's CPAC representative for the previous two years yet she clearly did not want to state that fact. At that point I first began to realize that the two bitches (Pat & Susan) had set me up. Being naive politically as well as fully trusting Susan's ethics I hadn't seen it coming, making me an easy target.

I believed that Sandy was not necessarily corrupt but merely easily swayed by smooth talkers like Susan and Pat. From time to time since, seeing Sandy's asinine decisions and positions I have often felt otherwise. Perhaps knowing her own weaknesses on many matters she has sought out and accepted very poor advice. This would certainly include from the likes of Mark Bauman and David Brenneman so clearly it's not a gender thing with her. She simply is vulnerable to glib advice and counsel and there are far too many willing to fill her intellectual and knowledge shortage.

Yesterday I was advised by a CPAC member that Sandy probably is far more naive and inexperienced than she is corrupt. It's easier going along with advice from people near her than to spend the time on her own actually learning the facts. Clearly those in power above her have long felt that she has the right stuff for their purposes. In the case of the distressed school board appointing her Chair of the Board (Tustees) was a no brainer. She talked nicely and looked good and her complete lack of political skills and experience seemed an advantage. She did not disappoint. Similarly our American friend Susan has had honours bestowed upon her by grateful local authorities such as the Region of Waterloo and the GRCA. Exactly why they are grateful is a very good question. Her breakfast time coffee meetings with Ken Seiling in her home in the very early 90s may have set the stage. Were private agreements made for cooperation now for consideration later? Similarly it's obvious that Pat and Susan had a private agreement with Chemtura for lifetime access to chats regarding local environmental matters. The ACC or APT Chemtura Committee which ran from early 2011 until 2015 is a testament to that. Privately held, ongoing meetings outside the CPAC scope while Chemtura were simultaneously meeting with the Council appointed reps (CPAC) was bizarre at the least. Poor Pat and Susan were enraged when the Todd Cowan council refused to appoint them to CPAC. Poor babies. Turnaround is fair play don't you think?

So back to Sandy. She's incompetent, easily led and mostly for show. Yet... she did insist upon warning signs being put along the Canagagigue Creek advising fishermen of the dangers of eating fish they caught. She (with huge assistance) invented RAC and TAG which Councillor Merlihan appropriately called "cringeworthy" in regards to it's supposed public consultation. Clearly Chemtura and the M.O.E. got exactly what they wanted there. Can we thank Mark Bauman and David Brenneman for most of that. Yet... Neither Susan nor Pat were appointed Chair. Not by a long shot. Dr. Richard Jackson was the first and most incredible Chair. Tiffany Svensson is the second Chair. Susan and Pat were given two temporary positions on RAC for one year. Since then it's been rotated with Sebastian Seibel-Achenbach and David Hofbauer representing TAG at RAC meetings.

Sandy and Council screwed up royally with the fiasco in Breslau regarding selling part of the park to the Catholic School Board. Who was pushing Sandy's buttons on that one? A past lame duck Council screwed up by approving the Jigs Hollow gravel pit for above water table extraction. My guess is that this one will approve the below water table extraction that is currently before them. On the matter of methane gas in and around the Bolender Park landfill both staff and various Council members have lied like dogs to the public. The rest of Council are too lazy and or stupid to read the CRA reports. Shame on the pack of them. So what do you think; Is Sandy naive/stupid or is she corrupt? One definition of corrupt is "riddled with errors" so I guess she could be both simultaneously.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017


First off the older I get the more corruption of public processes that I have seen. Typically it is our politicians hiding behind "process" in order to avoid accountability or being held responsible for public policy snafus. In other words the most accountable and transparent process possible on paper guarantees nothing. It is the individuals involved in the "process" whether that process be court, hearings, Inquiries, Commissions , elections, debates, public consultation etc. that determine it's honesty and outcome. In other words any manmade "process" can and has been perverted by individuals so inclined and in position to do so.

On that note why bother? Well sometimes an honest and open public process is in the interests of enough people, the media and even some in positions of authority that everyone will pay close attention. When under the public microscope, while not impossible, it is much less likely that vested interests, including guilty vested interests, will fiddle and meddle in the process in order to preserve their own interests.

Here in Elmira the obvious focus of any Inquiry or Commission should be the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. They have long been in a conflict of interest position as their private deal making with polluting industries has caused irreparable harm to the environment and to citizens' health. The failure of the Ministry of Health provincially or even regionally to conduct a serious health study in and around Elmira is to both their shame. Perhaps this actually might end up being a proxy Inquiry into political corruption at the provincial level. Why are all three major parties soft on corporate polluters while hell on wheels with little polluters? To say it is a double standard is an understatement. The more money and authority a polluter has the better, more respectfully and more gently they are treated by our M.O.E..

Political deals including sweetheart deals, free passes for past sins (indemnities), impossible standards of proof required to open investigations or remedy failings; these are all part and parcel of the corrupted political process. Whether we are discussing Varnicolor Chemical, Phillips Environmental, Uniroyal Chemical, Breslube/Safety-Kleen, ProCast Foundries, Rothsay Concentrates, Scavenger Recycling or even things like ridiculously located landfills in and around Elmira; we've got them all. Our air, our creeks and rivers and our groundwater have all been seriously impacted over the decades despite a litany of anti-pollution legislation. The common thread has been the undue influence of money and power as to who receives the full extent of enforcement of public interest pollution legislation.

Currently primarily in private, concerned Elmira citizens are receiving confirmation as to the failures of our authorities at all levels in regards to environmental protection and remediation. We are learning that the 2028 cleanup of the Elmira Aquifers is no longer unlikely it is impossible. It is not solely due to one or two minor unforseen complications but due to a litany of incompetence, overconfidence and unaccountability. It is due to the gamesmanship of our authorities removing one way or the other the best, brightest and most committed citizens from the public consultation process. It is also due to the wonderful addition of Dr. Richard Jackson back in September 2015. That he became part of the process by the pair on Council most responsible for the previously mentioned gamesmanship in removing honest and committed citizens, is beyond bizarre. Whether his early departure was also due to the same pair in addition to "public policy" failures as he put it, I do not know. Only suspect. Was their appointing of Dr. Jackson a huge mistake that truly turned the tide on Chemtura/CRA/M.O.E. bullshit and puffery; hence indicating their incompetence in supporting the partners in pollution or did they sincerely appoint Dr. Jackson truly knowing what a dedicated, powerful and sincere individual he was? If the latter then that would speak to their stupidity, naivety and incompetence in formerly supporting the three mouseketeers and their self-serving agendas.

Some form of Public Inquiry is needed. Of course those who could initiate it are as usual implicated themselves. I await the future
removal of both the Liberals and Conservatives as the governing party here in Ontario. While not quite having a monopoly on the environmental blame here, they are very close. Perhaps an NDP or NDP/Green coalition might see some political advantage in such an Inquiry. Sad but that's the most likely way it will ever happen.