O.K. I've done my due diligence. Officially I think that Ramin (Lanxess) once again have found yet another shortcut/money saver. Why would I not expect that he's on a corporate bonus system that rewards him for each and every dollar saved on the cleanup? His employers are not saints nor are they a non-profit charity. They sure as hell aren't even in a particularly clean business as proven by them and their colleagues (Dupont, Union Carbide and so many more). Sure you can put lipstick on a pig and just like the CIAC (formerly CCPA) pretend that *Responsible Care fixes everything. It helps yes but a rogue or irresponsible chemical company are just going through the motions.
Here's what I found out. As expected the distance of off-site pumping wells from the Uniroyal/Lanxess site varies dramatically. In order of closeness to the site we have W5A/B, W8, W9, W4, W6A/B, W3, E7/9. W5A/B I expect is within 100 yards/metres of the stinking, contaminated pigpen ....(oops don't want to sound biased from three decades plus of being lied to) so let's just say from the property. The farthest wells however (E7/E9) are approximately a mile away. Keep in mind that despite this distance pumping at E7/9 does affect (lowers) municipal groundwater levels on the site hence a very direct hydraulic connection.
So what I did was quite straightforward. I have maintained Tables of pumping results for both on and off-site pumping wells, gleaned from the monthly alleged Progress Reports since 1992. Looking through them many trends are obvious such as the pathetic overall off-site pumping as promised to both the public and to CPAC both twenty-five years ago and specifically in November 2012, a decade ago. No wonder they aren't going to meet their 2028 commitments. Also pathetic are the recent (last couple of years) incremental decreases in pumping of the UACTS (Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System). Anything to save a nickel although I expect that Ramin has an answer for the likely/probable ongoing leakage of Uniroyal contaminants into the Canagagigue Creek as well.
What I see as the largest volume changes in off-site pumping over the years is the decrease from approx. 13-15 litres/second to 0 l/sec at well W4 located just west of the former Varnicolor Chemical site on Union St. Notice where W4 is located in relative distance from Uni/Lanxess. Then we have the long delayed arrival of pumping well W9 on the scene. It is not only located closer to Uni/Lanxess but it is cross-gradient versus further downgradient as W4 is. W9 didn't really get going until August 2021 other than a few months in mid 2019. Currently W9 is pumping between 13 to 16 l/sec. and I emphasize is CLOSER to the Uni/Lanxess site. Now the relatively recent additions of wells W8 and W6A/B are mostly irrelevant in regards to affecting on-site containment because of their tiny pumping rates. We are talking .07-.09 l/sec for W8 and W6A/B a total of less than 1.0 l/sec. and it is much further away than W8. Also I've looked carefully at W5A/B which are the very closest off-site pumping wells. Generally their pumping rates have been stable over time (8-9 l/sec) with occasional bouts of melancholia reducing one pump or the other.
So the net result I see in off-site pumping rates are slightly more pumping from a well closer to the site (W9) combined with the reduction to Zero l/sec at W4. This therefore using Ramin's logic that he discussed at RAC last Thursday should have caused either no change in on-site pumping to maintain hydraulic containment or at most a small increase. Instead there has been a steady decrease for the last thirteen or fourteen months. Hence I'm not buying his explanation and leaning towards mine of saving a nickel on cleanup costs even to the point of going backwards and losing hydraulic containment of higher on-site contaminated groundwater leaking off-site.
No comments:
Post a Comment