Home / Management & Policy / Groundwater

Water Quality · Groundwater

How a PFAS plume moves through groundwater: the hydrogeology behind North Bay's forever-chemicals hotspot

A single fire-training area can seed a groundwater plume that runs for kilometres and lingers for decades. Here is the hydrogeology a practitioner reads into the North Bay case, and why these plumes are so hard to pull back.

Abstract cross-section of an aquifer showing a PFAS source zone at the surface feeding a long plume that spreads down-gradient toward a well and a creek.
Fig. 0   Schematic hero art: an AFFF source zone feeding a down-gradient groundwater plume. Illustrative, not to scale.
Ayres River Editorial TeamReviewed by a water-resources engineer
Published 8 July 2026
10 min read · ~850 words
AI-assisted, human-reviewed. Research synthesis and a first draft were produced with AI tooling. All data, mechanisms, and conclusions were checked and edited by the editorial team and a qualified reviewer before publication. See cited sources for the underlying material.

The news framing of North Bay, Ontario is a public-health one: a contaminated municipal supply, private wells to sample, a remediation budget, a class action. Underneath all of that sits a groundwater problem with a specific shape. A point source at the surface has been feeding a plume through soil, bedrock, and the water table for decades, and the hydrogeology of that plume is what decides how far the contamination reaches and how long any fix has to run.

The source in North Bay is not unusual. From the early 1970s into the mid-1990s, aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF, was used to train firefighters near the airport. That foam carried per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the family of forever chemicals now grouped under PFAS. Consultants later traced PFAS from the foam into soil, bedrock, groundwater, private wells, and several waterways including Trout Lake, Lake Nipissing, and nearby creeks. This article sets out the transport mechanisms behind that spread and what containment actually asks of an aquifer.

Why a fire-training area becomes a source zone

Repeated foam application over the same ground leaves a source zone: a volume of soil and shallow rock where PFAS mass is stored and from which it keeps releasing. Two properties make that store durable. First, these compounds are persistent. They resist the biological and chemical breakdown that eventually retires most organic contaminants, so the source does not weather away on any useful timescale. Second, they are mobile in water. Once dissolved, PFAS travels close to the speed of groundwater itself, with far less of the sorption and retardation that holds fuels or solvents near their release point.

There is a wrinkle specific to this chemistry. PFAS are surface-active, so a portion partitions to the air-water interface in the unsaturated zone above the water table. That trapped fraction is not inert. It becomes a slow secondary source, released to the saturated zone as infiltration passes through, which is one reason concentrations at a site can stay elevated long after the original foam use stopped.

How the plume spreads

Below the water table the contamination moves by advection, carried along the hydraulic gradient toward lower head, and spreads by dispersion as it goes. Because retardation is weak, the leading edge tracks groundwater flow closely, and low but detectable concentrations can extend far down-gradient. Documented AFFF plumes elsewhere run for hundreds of metres to kilometres. Where bedrock is fractured, as around North Bay, flow follows the fracture network rather than a uniform porous medium, so the plume can move faster and in less predictable directions than a simple map would suggest.

The destinations matter. A plume that intercepts a pumping well pulls contamination into a supply. A plume that discharges to a creek or lake moves the problem to surface water, linking the groundwater case to the same rivers and lakes the region depends on. That is why sampling in these cases spans private wells, the municipal system, and surface waterways at once: they are endpoints of one connected flow system, not separate problems.

water table source zone plume, down-gradient → well reactive barrier creek
Fig. 1   PFAS released at a surface source zone migrates down through the unsaturated zone, enters the saturated aquifer, and spreads down-gradient toward wells and surface water. A permeable reactive barrier placed across the flow path intercepts the plume without pumping it out.

What containment actually requires

Remediating PFAS in groundwater is constrained by the same two properties that make the plume spread. Because the mass does not degrade, there is nothing to wait out, and because it is mobile and dilute, treating the whole plume is impractical. Practitioners therefore separate two jobs: shrink or cut off the source, and stop the plume from reaching receptors.

The North Bay program shows both. On the source side, work has included excavating and disposing of PFAS-impacted soil and injecting activated carbon into denser patches to hold the mass in place. On the plume side, a proposed permeable barrier would sit across the flow path so contaminated groundwater filters through it in situ rather than being pumped to the surface. That is the logic of a permeable reactive barrier: convert a slice of the aquifer into a fixed filter, typically using granular or colloidal activated carbon, and size it to keep working for decades. The alternative, pump-and-treat with granular activated carbon or ion exchange at the surface, can hold a hydraulic capture zone but runs indefinitely because the source keeps supplying the plume.

Why the timeline is measured in decades

A recurring theme in these cases is delay, and it is partly hydrogeologic. Elevated PFAS was reportedly detected near the North Bay base years before it was disclosed, and by the time a plume is mapped it has usually been advancing for a long time. Delineation itself is slow: it takes networks of monitoring wells, sampled repeatedly, to fix a plume's extent in fractured ground where flow paths are uneven. Even after a source is capped, the air-water-interface store and the mass held in low-permeability layers keep feeding the aquifer, so concentrations decline gradually rather than dropping off.

For a practitioner the lesson is that these are long-horizon systems. The response has to be designed for persistence: source control to cut the supply, an interception barrier or capture zone to protect receptors, and monitoring that trends over years rather than reading once. The same connected-system view applies to related contamination pathways, from how land disturbance loads source-water catchments with sediment to how salt moves through coastal aquifers. More on the site is on the home page and the about page.

Cited sources

References & underlying material

  1. North Bay's PFAS problem: 5 things to know about a forever-chemicals hotspot in Ontario. Circle of Blue / The Narwhal, by Leah Borts-Kuperman. circleofblue.org
  2. PFAS Information. City of North Bay. northbay.ca
  3. Enhanced attenuation (EA) to manage PFAS plumes in groundwater. Newell et al., Remediation Journal, Wiley. onlinelibrary.wiley.com
  4. Treatment Technologies for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). itrcweb.org