Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 16 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
and provides “a quick and easy path for the concentrated leachate to escape,” should the lined collection pond leak.
• the computer model for simulating a release of pollutants assumes the landfill liner is placed on soil underlain immediately by bedrock, so the addition of the French drain system beneath the liner makes these models obsolete.
• the “very large gap” between ■wells three and four makes the configuration of monitoring wells insufficient. “This gap corresponds to a natural gully running from the middle of the site to the creek. If surface topography is any reflection of the bedrock shape, and it probably is, then this gully would act as a funnel for ground water traveling to the creek. Contamination traveling here would never enter the monitoring wells and would enter the creek undetected.”
i • the model also ignores the issue of ground water flowing in the frac■ tures of the bedrock.
Mr. McThenia concludes “the entire geotechnical evaluation of this site is faulty” and that “unfortunately, Rappahannock County’s citizens, in particular those of Amissville, will be forced to bear the costs of a hasty decision and an inadequate evaluation.” County expected ground water study — not an attack on landfill’s design
“Bemused and surprised” was County Administrator John McCarthy’s response to Mr. McThenia’s report. Saying he has pot yet received a copy and so couldn’t reply to particulars, Mr. McCarthy added: “Our understanding was that he was conducting a ground water study in the Amissville area, not a criticism of
87.7%