Luis Almeida and all the rest of the Lanxess/GHD crew as well as TRAC have been avoiding this issue for the last few years despite a number of written comments I've sent in comparing the pumping rates both on and off site since 1998 (Off-site) and since 1992 (On -site). Mr. Almeida's response in this forum is pretty much as weak as anybody else's with a whole lot of gobbledygook mostly ending with an exasperated sort of "Trust us". Well sorry Luis but that ship sailed decades ago.
Luis also claims that "It's also important to note that Lanxess has set target rates are above pumping rates that achieve containment." Yeah that's important if it's true. For literally decades though it's the opposite of what we were told at UPAC and CPAC. It is also the opposite of what GHD WRITE below their pumping results in each and every monthly Progress Report . There they make it plain that they GHD recommend that Lanxess maintain the Target Pumping Rates for both on and off-site pumping wells.
I mentioned gobbledygook back in the first paragraph. CRA/GHD have been known and been caught! assigning off-site Sentry Wells in the past such as CH44 and CH100 that they knew were screened in both the shallow aquifer as well as in the municipal upper aquifer. This gave artificially high groundwater elevations just off-site allowing Chemtura/Lanxess to claim hydraulic containment when it did not exist. Hydrogeologist Wilf Ruland argued this exactly in a private meeting with Chemtura but ran for cover when CRA objected loudly. Dr. Regier was present as was a number of less honest persons than Dr. Regier and myself. Months later the Environmental Review Tribunal agreed with my assessment on this well being improperly assigned by CRA as an off-site Sentry Well.
No comments:
Post a Comment