unusuallylethargic t1_jdzwo8r wrote
Reply to comment by Matt3989 in Mayor Scott says contractor can’t discharge treated waste from Ohio train crash in city wastewater system by Cody_in_Baltimore
If you read my comment my concern isnt that the company isnt capable of treating the waste its that the 'acceptable levels' of toxins in the effluent are not acceptable to me. We don't have any detectable vinyl chloride in the bay or harbor right now, why should we accept that 4ppm will make it in? It may be safe for humans technically, but do you really think that won't have any ecological effect?
Matt3989 t1_je01yzd wrote
>We don't have any detectable vinyl chloride in the bay or harbor right now
How can you claim that? We've shown it multiple times, in multiple areas of the Bay, over the last 30 years:
Frog Mortar Creek, near Martin State Airport (2014)
Chesapeake Watershed Chemical's of Concern (2000)
Indian Acres on the Sassafras in 1996
I saw a few other sources published by Williams and Mary in 1992, but the scans didn't have OCR and were tough to navigate.
>If you read my comment my concern isnt that the company isnt capable of treating the waste its that the 'acceptable levels' of toxins in the effluent are not acceptable to me.
Again, this facility specializes in this, it's within their purview, they've probably handled Vinyl Chloride or other Chlor-Alkalis before (and likely worse on a regular basis), you just haven't been paying attention because it hasn't made national news.
It's totally fine if you've now decided that this is a concern, but then why are we just stopping this single occasion? The industrial waste treatment plant should be completely closed, right?
unusuallylethargic t1_je05qlo wrote
I really have two responses to this, first, yes of course I can claim that, because a small handful of VC incidents over 30 years of course doesn't contradict my point that we don't currently have any VC in the harbor or bay. Anyway, second more in depth response:
Yes, there have been a few incidents where vinyl chloride has been detected in small areas in the watershed. These are brief points in time and not a consistent presence of VC. This is quite different I would think than dumping a huge amount of effluent that still has significant amounts of it into, effectively, the bay. And to be clear, one of your links doesn't show a vinyl chloride leak, it lists VC as a chemical of concern. Another shows that it was detected at just over 1 ppb in a very small area. The Frog Martin link says that was an area of concern because, in part, vinyl chloride was found in the area (at a concentration of 0.7 ppb). The sum of all of this is that the detection of virtually any vinyl chloride in any area in the Chesapeake watershed has been a Big Deal. So how is your conclusion that discharging effluent at 4 ppm into the sewers is totally cool?
Matt3989 t1_je081jv wrote
>So how is your conclusion that discharging effluent at 4 ppm into the sewers is totally cool?
EPA limits are for vinyl chloride 2ppb. The highest concentration in the waste that was meant for here was 62ppb (or 0.062ppm). So yeah, pretty sure they weren't going to discharge at 4ppm...
>This is quite different I would think than dumping a huge amount of effluent that still has significant amounts of it into, effectively, the bay.
I think your sizes are off, 600,000 gallons is not a "huge amount" in this context.
My point is that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You've read a headline and are now outraged, and after this week you'll go about your life unaware of all the waste water that Clean Harbors treats and discharges to the sewer system.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments