I mean my first doubts probably occurred twenty-five years ago or more. Groundwater plume maps looked great but I picked up a few discrepancies that concerned me. For example a groundwater elevation line that was on the wrong side of a specific concentration was a red flag. Basically groundwater flows from higher elevations to lower and contaminant concentrations generally decrease with distance from their source. Therefore if you have a contour line of say 341 metres above sea level then you expect higher concentrations of contaminants upgradient of it and lower downgradient (i.e. farther away) .
Also I noticed then that some of the groundwater elevation readings were both self-serving and sketchy at the same time. Off-site well CH44 is a good example. Somehow it maintained a higher elevation than several observation wells much closer to the Uniroyal property which was very convenient for CRA and Uniroyal because it "proved" hydraulic containment on site (i.e. lower groundwater elevations on site implied an inward flow versus an outward flow of contaminants). It turned out that well CH44 had a direct connection between the Upper Aquifer and the Municipal Upper Aquifer which artificially raised the groundwater elevation readings thus supposedly showing hydraulic containment. It was all bullsh*t.
Today's plume maps concern me for a number of reasons including the alleged great containment even when they are pumping significantly less than they have in years and decades past. It is counter intuitive and again awfully self-serving. I believe that their decreased pumping both on and off-site has decreased hydraulic containment AND reduced the number of litres of contaminated groundwater being treated and then discharged to the Canagagigue Creek. Please explain to me how long term less volume of pump & treat in both shallow and deep aquifers is allegedly maintaining containment on site and supposed to decrease contaminant concentrations off-site to drinking water standards. It isn't working and all parties after decades of lying now so admit that.
No comments:
Post a Comment