More crap to deal with than any man should have to!

This is from Barrie's Official Plan

(g) Development shall be directed away from hazardous lands

adjacent to streams and lakes that are impacted by erosion

hazards. The erosion hazard limit of lakes and streams shall be

determined using the guidance manual prepared by the Ministry

of Natural Resources.

(h) Development shall be generally directed away from hazardous

sites such as areas of unstable soils. A geotechnical soils report

shall be required prior to any development within or adjacent to

hazardous sites. This report shall be prepared to the satisfaction

of the City and the Conservation Authority.

This drawing shows Hotchkiss Creek Watershed which runs directly
through the Allandale Train Station Site and on into the bay carrying with who knows what kinds of deadly toxins. Hotchkiss Creek watershed takes in the garages on Gowan
and the car lots on Essa and some of Tiffin. Don't get me started.

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.

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

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water

Cancer-causing chemical found in 89 percent of cities sampled

Laboratory tests commissioned by Environmental Working Group have detected hexavalent chromium, the carcinogenic “Erin Brockovich chemical,” in tap water from 31 of 35 American cities. The highest levels were in Norman, Okla.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Riverside, Calif. In all, water samples from 25 cities contained the toxic metal at concentrations above the safe maximum recently proposed by California regulators.

The National Toxicology Program has concluded that hexavalent chromium (also called chromium-6) in drinking water shows “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity” in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of gastrointestinal tumors. In September 2010, a draft toxicological review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) similarly found that hexavalent chromium in tap water is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”

In 2009, California officials proposed setting a “public health goal” for hexavalent chromium in drinking water of 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) to reduce cancer risk. This was the first step toward establishing a statewide enforceable limit. Despite mounting evidence of its toxic effects, the EPA has not set a legal limit for hexavalent chromium in tap water nationally and does not require water utilities to test for it. In 25 cities where EWG’s testing detected chromium-6 — in the first publicly available national survey for the contaminant — it was found in concentrations exceeding California’s proposed maximum, in one case at a level more than 200 times higher.

At least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink chromium-polluted tap water, much of it likely in the cancer-causing hexavalent form. Given the scope of exposure and the magnitude of the potential risk, EWG believes the EPA should move expeditiously to establish a legal limit for chromium-6 and require public water suppliers to test for it.

Letter to Metrolinx/GO

Good morning.

I live in Barrie in the Allandale Heights area.

Lately I have been contacting as many people as possible to discuss a serious contamination problem

in the lands at Allandale Station Lands.

This contamination consists of, but is not limited to, Mercury, Benzene, Lead and Chromium VI.

I believe a first environment assessment performed in 1996 identified some of this contamination.

In 2009/2010 Engineering firm Golder, on behalf of the city of Barrie, performed many environmental assessments and discovered worrisome contamination. In fact they recommended to the city of Barrie that they should remove as much of this contaminated soil as possible.

Metrolinx/GO later installed a secondary station and platform on these contaminated lands.

Were you informed about the contamination? Were your contractors informed about the contamination? If mercury is present, Department of labour insists individuals wear respirators and clothing that can be disposed of at the end of each day. Were the employees properly protected.

Piles of excavated and contaminated soils were placed onto the Allandale Station Lands, already contaminated, for up to 2 years. It would seem this soil was then placed back onto the GO lands.

During the time these piles sat on the Allandale Lands they would have leached their toxins into the lands.

I would hope that Metrolinx/GO would challenge the city of Barrie for FACTS. And at the same time,

in a socially responsible way point out to the citizens of Barrie and our visitors that there is a contamination

problem at your Allandale GO Station. This GO station sees many hundreds of people visit it each weekday. They are being exposed to contaminated run-off when it rains and to contaminated dust when the dry winds blow.

I hope to hear from you and to discuss my concerns.

 

 

This is a city drawing from the Allandale Community improvement plan.

The plan is dated September 2009.

It is covered under -

SCHEDULE A TO BY-LAW 2007-084

 

You will note that the GO Station for Allandale was slated to be located

in a much different place than it is in now.

When the city called for tenders to develop the Allandale Station Lands they used this survey of the area. Actually they would have provided a Site Survey that looked much like this picture but it would have carried more information such as surveyor's marks.

The developers would have relied on this survey to prepare their presentation documents. These documents would have shown a plan view on the survey indicating the placement of buildings, parking sidewalks and landscaping.

However, with the GO Station now moved to a location where it eats into the space allotted for the developers. It shows the city is not playing fair in its bidding process.

The winning developer, CGI Group, is now suing the city of Barrie for upwards of $80 million.

This could all have been avoided if the Mayor and Council had played fair.

The developer, CGI even called Mayor Lehman to ask for a meeting where they could settle this problem. Mayor Lehman did not consult with council. He just outright refused to meet. He cannot do this under the law.The Mayor
should have consulted with Council.

 

My main concern throughout all that I write is the safety of the Barrie Public and visitors to this city. I believe and it has yet to be proven that our drinking water has been compromised.

Stand up and be counted. Write to the Mayor and your councillor and demand they own up and come clean.



Just read an Engineer's Report on the soil and site conditions at the Allandale Train Station. Wow. Have we got some dangerous things happening
Site contamination where lead levels are 100% over acceptable. Run off into the storm sewers and into Lake Simcoe suspected.
Email or phone the City Clerk and ask for the cities site report from back in 2010.
It supposedly shows mercury contamination. Mercury is one of the most toxic metals known to man and woman. Mercury can breach the placenta and enter the fetus.
Scary Huh??
Why didn't the city let its citizens know?

Settle the Lawsuit Pretty Please!!



 

Please Leave me a comment

for all to see!

 

If you would like a pdf copy of

any of the environmental reports

send your request indicating which report to:

 

ramsayresources@yahoo.com



 

 

 

 

 

OOOPSY!!

 

The city of Barrie continues to spend our money.

They installed a really large storm sewer recently

intended to connect the end of William Street to

Kempenfelt Bay.

 

However, instead of taking the route most direct, the city, for some reason, took a hard right at the end of William Street, down Gowan to approx ½ way on the Allandale Station Site. They then took a hard 90-degree left turn and ran the large sewer through the contaminated lands.

 

I don’t get it. I really don’t. The city could have ran

The sewer across Gowan and connected to the short service road that leads to Lakeshore Drive. And thus avoid the contamination. They should have and could have avoided screwing up the site for further development. They could have followed the course I have outlined, and then after the developer who takes over the site starts to build he could run connecting sewers.

 

Of course that would happen if the city of Barrie finally decides to listen to reason. If the city of Barrie saves the hard working taxpayers a lot of grief and extra money by settling the CGI lawsuit quickly.

 

The city of Barrie is wrong. There is a bunch of contamination remaining at the site. They should have told all of the prospective developers and the citizens about the contamination a long time ago. If they had we wouldn’t be in such a bad position.

Look, when they installed that big sewer they rested it on a bed of sand and gravel. So now the chemicals and metals and other bad stuff just whoosh towards the lake, into the bay.

 

The city of Barrie needs to stand up and protect its citizens. Our health is directly at risk. They must check into what the levels of contamination are and figure out a way of cleaning up the bay.

 

Right now, the city of Barrie has dug up a lot of soil and trucked it away to a company in the Toronto area.

This company, Green Soils, is charged with “cleaning the soil of poisonous/hazardous materials”. Then under MOE guidelines it will dispose of this soil. And this process is very expensive.

 

Just as soon as the contaminated soil was removed, new soil arrived. Now the city of Barrie is involved in a process of “cover and mitigate”. That means spreading new soil on top of whatever bad stuff remains. Then planting grass and flowers and maybe trees.

 

I doubt any new contractor will be willing to think about developing this property. Why would they?

 

Rumour has it that the contractor who installed the storm sewer was not aware of the contamination on site. And was pretty shocked when he found out!

You see, if there is any risk to his employees from say higher than acceptable levels of Mercury, his employees must use respirators when working at the site. And they must dispose of their clothing each day.

Mercury is very serious contamination. A drop the size of the head of a pin will contaminate 25 acres of water.

WOW!! And mercury will pass through the placenta into the fetus. It is the only metal known to be able to do this.

 

I grew up with many relatives who owned construction companies. I knew when I was as young as 10 to stay away from Mercury.

 

But Mercury is not all of the bad stuff that contaminated the soil and now I believe has trickled into the Bay and our drinking water. There is lead, benzene, chloride, sodium and that real bady – Chromium.

 

Erin Brokovitch is a real person and now is an environmental lawyer. Julia Roberts portrayed her in a movie bearing her name. She fought against the establishment who tried in every way to thwart her efforts. Chromium was the culprit and it was having a deleterious affect on the health of a community.

She studied hard and fought hard and even though she had not yet become a lawyer she won. And won big. $300 million dollars.

 

Yes we have a lawsuit against us the citizens of Barrie. And I wish the city of Barrie would just end it. Meet with the CGI people and work out a settlement. Because if this drags on and the proper remediation is not performed on the Station lands, we the citizens of Barrie could be in for a huge Class Action lawsuit.

 

Please. Mayor Lehman and Council. Fix this problem. Please!!

 

 

 

You can help!!

 

Call on the Mayor and your Councillor to put

An end to this!

 

Ask them to settle with the developer and save us a whole bunch of money!

 

 Here are two more important reports!

 

June 12, 2012

 Click on each page for a larger view

 

 



 

 

 

 

September 27, 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My Latest Letter to Barrie City Council & Mayor

I have tried a great many times to get your attention. To hope that one or two or three of you might

even reply to my emails. To no avail.

I read a story in the latest Barrie Advance in which Laurie Watt writes about the Stakes being raised

in the lawsuit of CGI v Barrie, Barrie Staff and the Mayor.

Perhaps she might sometime write another story in which she tells us that individual Councillors are named.

And over what? Well, in my humble opinion, staff have mishandled the Allandale Railway Lands. COVERUP springs to mind!

I have no doubt from reading the material on your barrie.ca website that staff knew about major contamination in the 9 acre parcel. Before the land was offered for sale to CGI. The reports are dated such that as far back as 2010 this contamination had been identified and quantified. It is all there in black and white. And in a few colourful photos you can look at on

http://answermethisbarrie.blogspot.ca/.

I suppose the Mayor and the legal personnel have told you that, because of the lawsuit you as councillors are not allowed to comment. Well, maybe. Maybe not. Is there a COVERUP?

If what you are told not to comment on has the potential to affect my health, my neighbour's health and

the health of everyone in Barrie, you have a legal responsibility to make sure everyone in Barrie knows about the problem.

And you should be taking the steps needed to remedy the problem. That is your job. Or is there a COVERUP happening?

I have obtained a copy of the environmental report done for the people at CGI. It is available for you to read on

http://answermethisbarrie.blogspot.ca/if you haven't already read it. There are even some colourful photos

with comments. Comments that should get you to think about what impact the contamination is having

on Kempenfelt Bay and on my health and the health of the citizens of Allandale.

Does the name Erin Brokovitch ring a bell. She won $300 million in a lawsuit where Chromium contamination

was the villain. And the railway lands have plenty of Chromium.

If there is something being done that breaks the law, you cannot be a part of it. When Barrie sold the train station to the CHUM Group

was an appraisal performed? How about environmental testing? This testing is a legal requirement. I am friends with a number of major developers

in Canada. Anytime they put a property up for sale they must perform an environmental assessment. These assessments can get costly.

But the penalties for not performing them are severe. Not to dismiss the follow-up lawsuits. COVERUPS come back to bite you in the a--.

The test reports done for the city of Barrie actually support CGI's contention that they were kept in the dark during project negotiations.

You cannot read these reports and not come to the same conclusion. CGI wasn't told about the contamination

problems until Novemeber 2012, long after the final test was completed according to Laurie Watt's article.

As an aside, the environmental testing that I am familiar with is far more extensive than what was performed by Golder. For sure a minimum 200 test holes should have been done.

The August 2012 report performed for CGI and posted on my blog - http://answermethisbarrie.blogspot.ca/

clearly underlines the extent of the contamination and also investigates the travel of pollutants/contaminants

to Kempenfelt Bay. This information is very concerning.

In around December of 2012 the city had a 10 foot x 10 foot storm sewer installed across the affected lands terminating at Kempenfelt Bay.

It rained a lot during construction. Water could be seen running off large piles of excavated dirt dug up on the site to allow installation of the sewer.

The run-off found its way into storm sewers along the service road and Lakeshore Drive. And then it went into Kempenfelt Bay!

And all this while you were told not to comment. COVERUP?

After the sewer was installed, many dump trucks were loaded with soil from the train site and hauled away to Toronto,

To a soil remediator – Green Soils. Yet staff reported NO contamination save a bit and nothing to be concerned with.

Then why was the soil sent to be cleaned? And what did it cost us. I have a right to know how much this cost.

Tell me please!

May I suggest that you read the Code of Conduct for Council. Test your actions so far against the code. NO COVERUPS ALLOWED.

But more than that, do your job. Ask hard questions. Don’t be part of the COVERUP, Get to the truth.

And you should reach out to the people at CGI. Reach a compromise. Settle and move on.

And clean up Kempenfelt Bay! PLEASE!

be well,

Peter Ramsay