Tuesday, May 21, 2019


Last Friday I posted here about a number of strange anomalies in Elmira and on the Lanxess site with landfills that relocate themselves, major drains and berms which don't show up on relevant maps, adjusted or altered Flood Plain maps, and even the relocation of GP-1 on two different occasions. Well we have at least one more to join the list.

The Conestoga Rovers April 2013 report titled "GP1 and 2 Remediation and Capping", drawing C-02 is the only source to date that I have seen which shows an opening at the top (north end) of the diagonal ridge of high ground located in Lanxess's south-east corner. The ridge is oriented in a north-west to south-east direction and is above the high water mark of a 100 year flood. Contrary or different maps clearly show that there is no opening at the north end of the ridge which would permit easier access of waste waters from the east side pits (RPE 1-5) to flow overland directly into GP-1.

The contrary reports I have seen include the most recent report produced by GHD in regards to the Canagagigue Creek investigation. That map produced by the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) clearly shows that the ridge while indeed hooked on the north-west end nevertheless is continuously above the water level of a 100 year flood. So is this difference of significance? I believe it is as it made the selling of the story by Uniroyal/Crompton/Chemtura that ALL the overland waste waters conveniently flowed directly into GP-1 first then into GP-2 so much easier. Of course they did what they do best which is to make unlikely claims more plausible by both hiding behind the Ontario MOE and their own credentials. Also they did of course not provide essential information for more than twenty years, namely ground elevation maps and contour lines. Even then I believe they (CRA) did their best to hide crucial contour lines on the neighbouring Stroh property.

Some of these oddities, anomolies, and disparities may have a reasonable explanation. The fact that each and every one however appears to be a major structural support of now proven falsehoods is extremely suspicious. Each and every one requires both investigation and clarification. The best we are likely to get however is the MOE and or Lanxess cherry picking one of them as a representative of all, in order to stifle the fact that they have manipulated, massaged, or falsified evidence to suit their narrative and purposes which normally are to minimize the extent of contamination and hence cleanup costs.

No comments:

Post a Comment