This stuff will make you Sick!

You or your loved ones might even die!

Anyone old enough to remember:

The Love Canal ( no not the love boat)

Stories about the Love Canal


Erin Brokovitch

 

The case alleged contamination of drinking water with hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium (VI), in the southern California town of Hinkley

 

There were unacceptable levels of the following materials on the Allandale Station Site.

With the city digging up the complete site and trucking away the material I believe they are trying to conceal the truth. To try and avoid losing the lawsuit brought against the city.

 

But ladies and gentlemen, is this honest?

The tax dollars needed to pay the judgement from the courts will cost all of us dearly,

 

The city might have spent as much as $15 million to truck the material away. How much more to reclaim the contaminated soil?

 

When they were digging away on site to install

a storm sewer the were spreading the contamination hither and thither. Some made it into the storm sewers and into the bay.

 

We get some of our drinking water from the bay and this is where it gets disturbing.

 

We have a Councillor who is an Environmental engineer. Yet he remains silent.

 

This afternoon the city has trucked tons of top soil back onto the site.

 

The city was to leave the site as is until the lawsuit was settled.

 

And none of the councillors has the guts to stand up for what is right and decent.

 

There are laws covering spillage into the water where fish are present and the penalties are severe. Barrie has been charged over this in the past.

 

 

 

Chromium-6 – the Erin Brockovich Chemical – Is Widespread in U.S. Tap Water

Tests find cancer-causing chemical in 89 percent of cities sampled

Chromium-6 in tap water of 35 cities averaged 3 times California's proposed safety goal

*Geometric average based on level of chromium-6 measured in 35 U.S. cities and a statistical estimate for the four cities where no chromium-6 was detected. The lowest level detectable by these tests is 0.02 ppb. For the purpose of calculating the nationwide average, the concentration of chromium-6 in these four cities was assumed to be 0.01 ppb, or half of the lowest detectable level.**"Proposed safe limit" is California EPA's proposed public health goal (OEHHA 2009).
Source: EWG-commissioned testing for hexavalent chromium in tap water from 35 cities.

Executive Summary

Tap water from 31 of 35 U.S. cities tested contains hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6), the carcinogenic “Erin Brockovich chemical,” according to laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group (EWG). The highest levels were detected in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, Calif.
Despite mounting evidence of the contaminant’s toxic effects, including a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft toxicological review that classifies it as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” when consumed in drinking water, the agency has not set a legal limit for chromium-6 in tap water and does not require water utilities to test for it. Hexavalent chromium is commonly discharged from steel and pulp mills as well as metal-plating and leather-tanning facilities. It can also pollute water through erosion of soil and rock.
The National Toxicology Program has found that hexavalent chromium in drinking water shows clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of otherwise rare gastrointestinal tumors (NTP 2007, 2008). In response to this study and others, California officials last year proposed setting a public health goal for chromium-6 in drinking water of 0.06 parts per billion (ppb). This is the first step toward establishing a statewide enforceable limit (OEHHA 2009).
Levels of the carcinogen in 25 cities tested by EWG were higher than California’s proposed public health goal. Tap water from Norman, Okla. (population 90,000) contained more than 200 times California’s proposed safe limit.

Millions of Americans drink chromium-contaminated water

EWG’s investigation is the broadest publicly available survey of hexavalent chromium to date. The 31 cities with chromium-polluted tap water draw from utilities that collectively serve more than 26 million people. In California, the only state that requires testing for hexavalent chromium, water utilities have detected the compound in tap water supplied to more than 31 million people, according to an EWG analysis of data from the state water agency (EWG 2009).

Top five chromium-contaminated cities tested by EWG

City	City Population	Hexavalent Chromium Contamination Level in Tap Water
Norman, Oklahoma	89,952	12.9 ppb
Honolulu, Hawaii	661,004	2.00 ppb
Riverside, California	280,832	1.69 ppb
Madison, Wisconsin	200,814	1.58 ppb
San Jose, California	979,000	1.34 ppb

EWG's tests provide a one-time snapshot of chromium-6 levels in 35 cities. But chromium pollution is a continuous, ongoing problem, as shown by the annual water quality reports that utilities must produce under federal law. Over the years, nearly all of the 35 cities tested by EWG regularly report finding chromium (in the form of total chromium) in their water despite using far less sensitive testing methods than those used by EWG.
The total number of Americans drinking tap water contaminated with this compound is likely far higher than is indicated by EWG's tests. At least 74 million people in nearly 7,000 communities drink tap water polluted with “total chromium,” which includes hexavalent and other forms of the metal, according to EWG’s 2009 analysis of water utility tests from 48,000 communities in 42 states (EWG 2009).
The EPA has set a legal limit in tap water for total chromium of 100 ppb to protect against “allergic dermatitis” (skin irritation or reactions). Measures of total chromium include the essential mineral trivalent chromium, which regulates glucose metabolism, as well as the cancer-causing hexavalent form. Preliminary EWG-commissioned water tests found that in most cases, the majority of the total chromium in water was in the hexavalent form, yet the EPA’s legal limit for total chromium is 1,700 times higher than California's proposed public health goal for hexavalent chromium. This disparity could indicate significant cancer risk for communities drinking chromium-tainted tap water.
The EPA’s new analysis of hexavalent chromium toxicity, released in draft form in September 2010 (EPA 2010a), cites significant cancer concerns linked to exposure to the contaminant in drinking water. It highlights health effects documented in animal studies, including anemia and damage to the gastrointestinal tract, lymph nodes and liver.

Industry deception delayed protections

The plight of the cancer-stricken residents of Hinkley, Calif., who in 1996 won a $333 million settlement from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for contaminating their tap water with hexavalent chromium, was the basis of the 2000 movie “Erin Brockovich,” starring Julia Roberts.
Subsequently, a 2005 Wall Street Journal investigation and a separate EWG report based on court documents and depositions from a similar lawsuit in Kettleman City, Calif. revealed that PG&E had hired consultants to publish a fraudulent analysis of cancer mortality in Chinese villagers exposed to hexavalent chromium, in an attempt to disprove the link between the chemical and cancer. The study was published in the respected Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and scientists and regulators — including the EPA — cited the fraudulent article in research and safety assessments. The journal retracted the paper in 2006 in response to EWG’s request for corrective action.
California officials then conducted a rigorous re-assessment of the study data, finding a statistically significant increase in stomach cancer among the exposed. Their analysis is consistent with laboratory evidence from the National Toxicology Program and others showing that hexavalent chromium in tap water causes gastrointestinal tumors in multiple species.
Industry has sought for more than six years to delay state-mandated regulation of hexavalent chromium in tap water in California. Aerospace giant Honeywell International Inc. and others have stalled the adoption of the advisory public health goal by pressing for additional external scientific peer review. California’s Department of Public Health can neither set nor enforce a mandatory tap water standard for hexavalent chromium until the goal is finalized.

Recommendations

At least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink chromium-polluted tap water, much of it likely in the form of cancer-causing hexavalent chromium. Given the scope of exposure and the magnitude of the potential risk, the EPA should move expeditiously to establish a legal limit for the chemical in tap water and require water utilities to test for it.
The state of California must establish a strong standard for hexavalent chromium in tap water immediately. A truly health-protective hexavalent chromium regulation will reduce the cancer risk for Californians and serve as a model for the nation. With an enforceable standard already six years past the statutory deadline and the health of millions of Californians at stake, the state cannot move too quickly.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In R. v. City of Barrie,12 the City was convicted of discharging raw sewage into a

creek when sewage overflowed from a pumping station. The pumping station was

blocked with construction debris dumped into a manhole by unknown builders.

Initial attempts to find the overflow were unsuccessful until daylight.

• In Laurentide Motels Ltd. c. Beauport (Ville),13 water was not available at fire

hydrants for 45 minutes after a fire started. The City was held responsible14 for

7 Section 288

8 [2000] O.J. No. 3863 (Ont Sup Ct of Justice)

9 R.S.O. 1990, c. D-17, s. 79(3)

10 (1988) 65 O.R.(2d) 79 (Ont Sup Ct, HCJ); aff’d (1991) 5 O.R.(3d) 11 (Ont CA)

11 (1999) 6 M.P.L.R. (3d) 59 (Ont Sup Ct Justice)

12 Unreported (June 25, 2002, Ont C.J.)

13 [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705

=================================

Environmental statutes

Prosecution is also a favoured tool under environmental statutes. Several environmental

statutes impose duties on everyone, including municipalities, to avoid pollution that could

occur through, e.g., inadequate maintenance of sewers.

For example, s. 36 of the Fisheries Act forbids any discharge of a deleterious substance

into water frequented by fish. Numerous cases confirm that raw sewage is a deleterious

substance.

Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act (“EPA”)49 contains a general prohibition against

discharging contaminants, which are defined to include any solid, liquid, gas, odour or

combination that result directly or indirectly from human activities and that causes or

may cause an adverse effect.50 An “adverse effect” is defined under the Act to include

injury or damage to property or plant/animal life; harm or material discomfort to any

person; loss of enjoyment of normal use of property or interference with normal conduct

of business.51

A spill of sewage into the natural environment breaches this prohibition, and engages the

spills provisions of the EPA52. A municipality is considered to have “control” over

sewage in its pipes, and must prevent it from being spilled into the environment.53 The

EPA also places a duty to mitigate and restore the natural environment on the

municipality, as owner/person having control of the spilled pollutant; this duty arises as

soon as the municipality knows or should have known the pollutant was spilled and is

likely to cause an adverse effect.54 A similar prohibition is found in s. 30 of the Ontario

Water Resources Act, (“the OWRA”).

The penalties for such spills can be very substantial. Every person who contravenes the

Act is guilty of an offence; in serious matters, conviction on a first offence can bring

fines of up to $6 million per day of the offence for corporations (this could include

municipalities) and up to $4 million per day and/or up to 5 years in jail for individuals.

The monetary penalty increases for subsequent offences.55 As well, in determining a

48 ss 141 to 144

49 R.S.O. 1990, c. E19

50 s. 6; definition in s. 1(1)

51 s 1(1)

52 at ss. 91 ff

53 The term “spill” means a discharge of a pollutant into the natural environment, from or out of a structure

(pipes would be considered structures) and that is abnormal in quantity/quality in light of the circumstances

of the discharge (in this case, freely flowing sewage would be considered abnormal).

54 s 93

55 As municipalities are often charged under other environmental statutes (e.g., the Ontario Water

Resources Act, the Nutrient Management Act, 2002; and the Pesticides Act), it is significant that, in

determining previous convictions, convictions under these statutes are taken into account. See ss 186-188.1

10

sentence, the court is required to consider aggravating factors, such as where an offence

resulted in impairment of water quality, or where the party committing the offence was

motivated by a desire to decrease costs.

Powers: Policy versus Operational decisions

When citizens sue municipalities over their powers (rather than their duties), much turns

on whether the decision in question is one of policy or of operations. 56 Municipalities do

not owe a private duty of care to citizens to take care in making discretionary policy

decisions, and therefore cannot be sued, if that policy decision is made as a bona fide

exercise of its discretion. 57 Policy decisions are:

“decisions of a political nature for which the authority should be accountable not

before the courts but before the electorate or the legislature.”58

Thus, a municipality could refuse, as a matter of policy, to provide municipal water or

sewer services, either generally or in a particular area. However, when a municipality

decides to provide these services, it owes a duty to its citizens to take reasonable care in

constructing and maintaining the system. Such acts are described as operational, and

therefore can be the subject of a civil suit. Unfortunately, as it is often difficult to

characterize a decision as purely “policy” or “operational”, it sometimes seems that the

courts impose liability whenever they believe it is fair to do so.

For example, in Just, boulders fell onto a busy highway, killing the passenger of a car and

injuring her father. The province had a system in place for inspecting rock slopes and

carrying out remedial work on them. In suing the province for negligence in failing to

maintain the highway, the father challenged the way in which the inspections were done,

the frequency of inspections, and the manner in which remediation should have been

carried out.

The Just court recognized the need to differentiate between policy decisions and their

operational implementation. As a general rule, decisions concerning budgetary

allotments are classified as policy decisions.59 It is important to protect governments

(and their officers and employees) from liability for policies because, otherwise, the

courts would constantly interfere with what should truly be political decisions.60 The

“operational” aspect of a governmental activity includes that manner and quality of an

inspection system, and the standard of care applied to a particular operation is assessed in

light of all surrounding circumstances, including budgetary restraints, and the availability

56 Anns v. Merton, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.)

57 In Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228, the court stated that once a policy is established, it is

open to a litigant to attack that policy as not having been adopted in a bona fide exercise of discretion, and

to show that, considering the circumstances, including budgetary restraints, the court should make a finding

on the issue. (at para 15)

58 Laurentide Motels Ltd. c. Beauport (Ville) [1989] 1 S.C.R. 705 (S.C.C.) at para 24

59 Just, at para 29

60 At para 17

11

of trained staff and the appropriate equipment.61 The court cited an Australian case62 as

providing helpful guidelines:

The distinction between policy and operational factors is not easy to formulate,

but the dividing line between them will be observed if we recognize that a public

authority is under no duty of care in relation to decisions which involve or are

dictated by financial, economic, social or political factors or constraints. Thus

budgetary allocations and the constraints which they entail in terms of allocation

of resources cannot be made the subject of a duty of care. But it may be otherwise

when the courts are called upon to apply a standard of care to action or inaction

that is merely the product of administrative direction, expert or professional

opinion, technical standards or general standards of reasonableness. [emphasis

added by the court in Just].

In Just, the manner in which inspections were carried out, and how remediation was

undertaken, were held to be operational in nature. They involved matters related to

administrative direction, expert or professional opinion, technical standards or general

standards of care. As such, these inspections were subject to review by the court to

determine whether the province had been negligent or had satisfied the standard of care.

In Just, the court agreed that it was reasonable for the user of a highway to expect that it

be maintained properly. The matter was referred for a new trial.63 If a duty of care is

owed by the government agency to the individual, and no exemption (by statute or

policy decision-making) is available, then a traditional torts analysis follows.

Thus, once a municipality has decided to provide sewer or water service in a particular

area, the actual provision of this service will probably be found to be operational, and

therefore subject to civil lawsuits.

However, a municipality need not upgrade and expand its service to accommodate

growth. In Riverscourt Farms Ltd v. Niagara-on-the-lake (Town),64 fire destroyed the

plaintiff’s building. The plaintiff sued the Town in negligence for failing to ensure that

an adequate water supply was available to extinguish the fire. The defendant Regional

Municipality of Niagara was responsible for supply, treatment and storage of water for

local municipalities; the Town was responsible for distribution of water and maintenance

of lines and water mains. The water system was outdated and both the Region and the

Town knew that there was not enough water to fight a large house fire. Elements of

negligence were established: the plaintiff was owed a duty of care by the Region and the

61 Just, at para 30

62 Sutherland Shire Council v. Heyman (1985), 60 A.L.R. 1, 59 A.L.J.R. 564, (per Justice Mason)

63 On the other hand, the policy itself may not need to be sound. In Barratt v. North Vancouver, [1980] 2

S.C.R. 418, a case in which injury had occurred because of a pothole on a road, the Supreme Court of

Canada determined that the City had established an inspection policy that was reasonable and proper.

However, Justice Martland stated (in obiter) that the City could not be held negligent because it formulated

one operational policy rather than another. He also said that if, in implementation of the policy, municipal

employees acted negligently and caused damage, liability could arise. [See Just at para 15]

64 8 M.P.L.R.(2d) 13 (1992) Ont Ct Justice (Gen Div)

12

Town; damage to the plaintiff by fire was foreseeable due to the lack of water. There w

 

 

=====================================

 

 

 

 

Call the Mayor and your Council person
and tell them to come clean.

Letter to the Editors - December 19, 2012 - Barrie Examiner and Barrie Advance.

Residents of Ward 8. Our health is endangered.

 

Recently I received an Environmental Assessment Report prepared for the Correct Group by Criterium Jansen Engineers. The date on the report is August 2, 2012. This date is coincides with the festival – Kempenfest.

 

Amounts of Lead and Benzene were found. The levels for each are over the acceptable amount. Lead is 100% over. Mercury, one of the deadliest metals known to man was also discovered. There are other contaminants. Remember Erin Brokovitch?

 

“This lead and benzene contamination is

especially critical as the samples were taken from area where run-off of soils and water

from the fill piles on the site were draining into the storm sewers at both Lakeshore Drive

(across the street from Lake Simcoe) and into the double catch basins next to the new

Allandale GO Station.”

:

 

I believe that the Mayor of Barrie has some explaining to do. Jeff Lehman is the top executive official. He had an environmental assessment report in his hands in 2010. This report is on the Barrie website now but wasn’t up until recently. In that report, Mercury was identified as present.

 

This site has groundwater under it. How much of the lead, benzene and mercury has entered the ground water. The groundwater flows to artesian wells from which the city draws some of its drinking water. Remember Site 41?

 

The Mayor is being sued personally for $10,000,000. Over stuff about the Allandale Site and comments he has made.

 

Every time I turn around the city is being sued once again. This time for $80,000,000.

 

Rob Ford the Mayor of Toronto was found in conflict after soliciting $3,300. for his football team. Not so much for the solicitation but more for his participation on a vote over the solicitation.

 

Mayor Lehman should step away from anything to do with Allandale Station. Or I believe that he is violating the Code of Conduct of his office.


 

Kempenfelt Bay is in Trouble!!

        

            A serious concern about the health of the lake and the citizens of Barrie has been brought to my attention. Details are contained in the story that follows.

             There has been quite a story generated over the use of the Allandale Station Lands.

The Correct Group at first was to build a development, which included the YMCA.

Forget about all of the minutiae surrounding the disagreements and court battles.

Clearly, from the report there is a very serious problem and steps need to be taken to correct it.

            When the Correct Group was first selected to do the new construction they were

unaware of a study done in November 2010. Richard Forward commissioned the study, which found amounts of mercury contamination. No amount of mercury is safe.

A drop of mercury the size of the head of a needle can contaminate 25 acres of water.

As I understand it now, the city finally filed this report with the court in the case brought by CGI. Peter Silveira the Councilor for Ward5 was never made aware of the report. Why?

 

            You are probably aware that great amounts of topsoil have recently been removed from the Allandale site and trucked to soil remeditators in the Toronto area. Even though the city has sworn that the soil is not contaminated.

 

            But I digress. I am very concerned. My drinking water probably comes from this part of the bay. I have lived a long time and probably am full of unhealthy stuff. But my grandchildren drink the water when they visit. I will have to bring in bottled water just to feel safe.

 

            The Federal Government through the efforts of our local PC MPP Patrick Brown has committed millions towards rehabilitating the lake. Please check into this situation yourself. Don’t believe anyone from the city including the council and mayor. Please ask the MOE or the Simcoe Health Unit to  have the water in the bay tested in proximity to the station lands.