Exercise 3

http://www.civil-action.com/environment/qa.html

Is there any new information about the Wells G & H area that wasn't known at the time of the trial or covered in A Civil Action?

Yes, there is a substantial amount of new information, and it is all supportive of Grace's view in 1986 that it did not contaminate Wells G & H. For example:

1. At the trial, the plaintiffs contended that Wells G & H drew no water from the Aberjona River.Grace contended that 50% of the water from Wells G & H came from the Aberjona. Shortly after the trial ended, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed its own study. USGS concluded that 50% of the water from Wells G & H came from the Aberjona River, meaning the river could definitely have served as a pathway for contamination. Not only was this finding contrary to the plaintiffs' assertions, it also invalidated the plaintiffs' conceptual model of groundwater flow.
2. At the trial, the plaintiffs asserted that Grace and Beatrice were the only potential sources of the contamination which led to the closure of Wells G & H in 1979. Grace contended that there were other potential sources. In 1988, EPA identified five potential sources of contaminants. Of the five, Grace is the farthest from Wells G & H and has the least contaminated property.
3. At the trial, the plaintiffs contended that the chemicals which led to the closure of the wells in 1979 were the only substances polluting the wells. Grace contended that other contaminants might well have been present. Since the late 1980s, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), under a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, has been studying the Aberjona River Watershed. This MIT study has uncovered substantial concentrations of chromium and arsenic (substances not related to Grace's activities) in Aberjona River sediments and peat bogs in the Wells G & H area. MIT researchers trace the history of that contamination back to the early part of the 20th century. MIT continues to work on both the environmental and toxicological aspects of Woburn.
4. At the trial, the plaintiffs contended that large amounts of chemicals were disposed on the Grace property and that groundwater moved quickly on this site. Grace contended that the amount of disposal was small and groundwater moved slowly. In the seven years that Grace has operated a groundwater recovery and treatment system, it has extracted--from the most heavily contaminated portions of its property--less than five gallons of contaminants, the least amount recovered by any remediation system operating in the entire Wells G & H area. Furthermore, all of the new boring information, uncovered through the installation of more than 30 groundwater wells since 1986, is consistent with Grace's conclusion that groundwater moves slowly on its property.

With respect to Paragraph 4:

What is the conclusion that is drawn from this information?

What are the reasons?

What terms are vague or unclear?

What value assumptions does Grace make?

What descriptive assumptions are used in this argument?

• That pumping only 5 gallons of contaminants in 7 years of operation of a groundwater recovery system is a good indication that the ground was not very contaminated.