They were at the very least, using misleading descriptions. Possibly using the term 'controlled burn' from firefighting incorrectly applied to this chemical burn off. As they mean entirely different things in these two fields.
Without further evidence of intent, I don't think it matters though, as those in charge are still culpable for their wrongful actions.
They are using the term loosely, to try and put a good face on what they did.
He mentions that there is a hazardous waste disposal site nearby. Which leads us to many Questions.
Were they masking what was done there?
They were at the very least, using misleading descriptions. Possibly using the term 'controlled burn' from firefighting incorrectly applied to this chemical burn off. As they mean entirely different things in these two fields.
Without further evidence of intent, I don't think it matters though, as those in charge are still culpable for their wrongful actions.
A firefighters version of a controlled burn is different than a chemical waste disposal engineer's version.