Tuesday, September 3, 2019


Without investigation and without reasonable explanation would be the best description of the Lanxess/MOE response to the suggestion/allegation that at some point in time (likely 1991-92) an Interceptor Trench was constructed on the east side of the Uniroyal Chemical property for the purpose of diverting westward flowing groundwater southwards and eastwards off the Uniroyal property. The visual appearance of the various satellite photos is that this alleged Interceptor Trench hooks into the pipe that discharges into the north end of the Stroh Drain, Ditch and Berm (SDDB).

Various reasons were given by Chemtura Canada including that the satellite photos merely showed a livestock fence or later it was suggested that it was some sort of wildlife fence to keep critters of whatever kind away from the former east side pits. The reasons were weak at best and required some kind of evidence or further explanation. Neither has occurred.

The Ontario MOE (Steve Martindale) gave a verbal, modest defence of the fence idea. It too hardly seemed persuasive. No response in writing has been received by either the company or the MOE on this important issue. An Interceptor Trench is a below ground trench with a pipe in it and small holes in the top of the pipe to allow groundwater to infiltrate the pipe. The slope is such on the east side that groundwater could gravity flow the length of the apparent pipe all the way over to the Stroh property.

Keep in mind that official drawings and text have been found from late 1991 that had been submitted to the Environmental Appeal Board on behalf of Uniroyal Chemical suggesting the construction of this Trench in order to stop the direct flow of contaminated groundwater from the east side of the site into the Canagagigue Creek on the Uniroyal property.

This is a bizarre situation in line with so much more that is bizarre regarding the cleanup of this site. In the future I expect that citizens both local and across Canada will shake their heads at what has passed for public consultation and cleanup in Elmira, Ontario.

1 comment:

  1. all work done "offsite" would prove that there was a conspiracy and "tie in" the parties that had something to lose or something to gain by flushing the contaminants east and southeast. towards/into the low level wetlands and river. The 1991 records you refer to are particularly detailed damning evidence proving intent.