No, I don’t pretend to be anything. I am what I am: A retired individual with over thirty years experience in heavy industrial engineering and construction.

During my career, I was involved in many demolition, modernization and expansion projects that involved remediation.

All of that aside, use your head for something besides a hat rack!!!

Since you now claim that you were aware that the soil samplings confirmed exceedences of Direct Contact and/or Leaching Standards for benzo(a) pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and naphthalene in the soil, why on earth aren’t you concerned that City Hall seems to be planning to SEAL the contaminated area with those nasty contaminants on our DRINKING WATER WELL FIELD SIDE???

Now, are there any of my SPECIFIC, enumerated points from my 8:07 am post above that you are claiming that an environmental engineer will state as being technically incorrect??? If so, please specifically address them and I will respond!!!

If not, why bring it up???

SWOhio:

I couldn’t sleep for thinking about this!!!

You believe that there are existing lagoons that have been used for the discharge of industrial waste???

And that this is a type of waste that needs to be remediated to “protect well fields”???

And that, at some point, the former lagoons area (or are you saying the lagoons themselves?) will be capped with clay???

These scenarios cry for relief on so many levels!!!

First, “capping a lagoon” defies logic. Capping a contaminated lagoon doubly defies logic (and this is certainly a case where two “wrongs” do NOT make a “right”). Capping a contaminated lagoon over a well field??? STRIKE THREE!!!

Think about a few things:

1. Before you could “cap” the lagoon, you would have to drain it.

2. You would NOT want to “cap” the contaminated soils at the bottom of lagoon with clay (or with anything else) because this would simply SEAL the contaminants under the cap!!! (The contaminants would be on the “WRONG” side of the “cap”, forcing them to eventually leach right into our DRINKING WATER AQUIFER!!! Clue: This would be a BAD thing!!!)

3. Even if you first REMOVE the contaminants (you would have to pay to haul them to a pit, sort of like a dry lagoon, that someone else had first excavated and LINED with clay) and then sealed the lagoon with clay, you would end up with a DEEPER LAGOON.

4. Even if, after draining the lagoon and removing all contaminated soils (which would then leave no reason for a clay “cap” unless you wanted a clay “liner” for the new, deeper lagoon, you felt the need to fill the entire excavated area/former lagoon, doing so with clay, or a clay/soil mixture, would only ruin the site for future commercial development, except for something like, oh, say a BARK PARK!!! Clay and clayey soils swell/shrink with moisture content and demand expensive remediation to be made suitable for commercial building.

So, the more that I think about it, that is probably EXACTLY what those scoundrels at City Hall have in mind: RUINING the site for future commercial development.

But wasn’t that what I said in my very first post on this subject???