unusuallylethargic

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?

0

unusuallylethargic t1_jdzwo8r wrote

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?

2

unusuallylethargic t1_jdzvd05 wrote

I mean from one of the articles (I dont remember which one) they said they will treat the waste water to get it down to EPA acceptable levels of vinyl chloride (4 ppm) and PFOS/PFAS (4 ppt) and then discharge it into the sewers, which might technically be 'safe' for humans but I can't imagine would be good for our already struggling Harbor and Bay. Not to mention the risk (no matter how small) of something going wrong (like, oh, say, the same thing that caused the disaster in the first place in ohio) and having another ecological disaster here. There's just no need to contaminate other communities with this stuff; its already in ohio so just treat it there.

5