It is important to distinguish the fate and transport of vinyl chloride (VC) in different media in order to understand the long term effects of the release. VC will naturally degrade in the environment, but at different rates depending on the substrate. VC readily degrades aerobically, so shallow surface soils and shallow groundwater contamination may last only a few days to a few years depending on the amount released and the immediate actions taken by cleanup crews. If the source materials (e.g. contaminated soil) are removed quickly, then the degradation time can be cut significantly. However, if the VC is allowed to seep deeper into groundwater it may persist for several decades under anaerobic conditions. The concentrations of the recalcitrant VC in deeper groundwater would need to be monitored to determine if it may cause adverse health effects (from drinking water).

All of the tasks presented in the Norfolk Southern consultant's workplan are consistent with the tasks I would recommend in this scenario (soil removal, area air monitoring, vacuuming up the liquid product at the site, aerated the nearby waterways to promote degradation, etc.). Arcadis is the consultant of record for the cleanup efforts and they are generally a good firm to rely on.

https://response.epa.gov/sites/15933/files/East%20Palestine%20RAWP%20Feb%2010%202023.pdf

The only thing which I am unsure about is the emergency release of the vinyl chloride to the air. Without additional information, which isn't public yet, I can't really say whether or not it was the best course of action as it sounds like there was a danger of explosion, which goes beyond environmental cleanup and bleeds into mechanical engineering.

It is highly unlikely that any contamination would reach that far, vinyl chloride levels measured by the EPA already show that the remaining surface water contamination near the site is limited to the immediate area near the spill and the remaining surrounding surface water contamination is minimal.

https://response.epa.gov/sites/15933/files/East%20Palestine%20Derailment_Surface%20Water%20Analytical%20Results%20Summary_rev02.pdf

I wanted to go ahead and just say that is a complicated question. I will attempt to answer it later as I am at work right now, but I don't have the time to answer that right now. I will go ahead and answer the media question though. In general the media is just as uninformed as anyone else not in this industry, without reviewing the actual site data, all they can rely on is what the company reps and government agencies release as statements. It does also seem that the media likes to hype up events out of proportion and that can create public concern that isn't really necessary.

For the worst environmental disaster check out Times Beach, Missouri. As far as response goes, I dont really have one that I can think of as the worst. The best responses are the ones you never hear about and they happen all the time :).

Typically, if you were a company or collective in the vicinity of the spill, you would hire someone like me, an environmental consultant. There are tons of consulting firms. If you would like to independently test media surrounding your home, I would focus on air monitoring rather than drinking water or soil. This is because vinyl chloride is typically a gas at room temperature and it is unlikely that if you are enough distance away from the release that you would detect VC in soil or groundwater on your property. Each state and EPA region has rules and regulations prescribing how soil, groundwater, and air media must be sampled so I would refer to your states specific rules in that regard. VC is in a group of chemicals known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the proper analysis code for a laboratory to analyze a soil or water sample would be EPA Method 8260D. This would provide you with the concentrations of the full suite of the VOC chemicals in the media you submit. You would then need to compare those results to OSHA permissible exposure levels PELs for the various chemicals, or VC specifically if that is all you are looking for. These tests typically cost between $80-120 per sample, depending on the lab. For air monitoring, if you visit the EPA page on the release site, you will notice that they are producing air concentrations for total VOCs. As I mentioned before, VC is a VOC, but there are tons of VOCs, so it isn't giving you an exact measurement of VC in the air. It's like if you saw a flock of birds in the air and you wanted to know how many ducks were in the air, but all the observer could tell you was the total number of birds in the air, which may include ducks, pigeons, hawks, etc. Measuring VOCs is, however, a legitimate strategy to determining if the air is harmful. For instance, if it takes 10 ducks to adversely affect someone, but the observer only counts 5 birds total in the air, then their cant possibly be 10 ducks. That is their current strategy. If there were 100 birds, they may employ a more chemical specific air monitoring method to speciate out what types of birds are in the air.

All that being said, consultants are expensive and after reviewing the EPA numbers, it appears that they didn't skip out on any procedures so far. I would not recommend hiring a consultant by yourself, but if you have an HOA, you might be able to do something as a group.

That’s some questionable numbers on the surface waters. A lot of J-flags, especially on compounds like Phenol. 8270-SIM could get better results on the SVOCs. I saw a hit for 1,4-dioxane too. Fascinating. I’d love to know if they used a heated purge, since that’s a requirement for 624.1.

It is difficult to say what affect that would have on the surrounding air near the release. It is generally a best practice to attempt to contain and quantify releases rather than destroying them with uncontrolled fire, in order to quantify the amount of product captured to compare it to the amount released. In some facilities that deal with VOCs a flare is installed to perform controlled burns of such chemicals. I would therefore, not recommend burning the chemical due to the unknown affects it may have on air quality in the immediate vicinity and the damage to long term cleanup efforts.

We are a small business located near Atlanta, Georgia.

Due to the nature of the release (i.e. train derailment) I do not have the expertise to recommend any changes to the operation of rail lines. However, in general, better management and adequate caution while handling these types of dangerous chemicals should be at the forefront of any industry transporting these chemicals. Skimping on rail infrastructure maintenance and deregulation of the rail safety precaution almost certainly had an impact on this occurring.

Favorite: Creosote, its sticky and tar like, very difficult to remediate, but with careful engineering and adequate data you can manage it. I had a site in London, UK where they had a former manufactured gas plant (MGP), which is similar to creosote (it was coal tar instead) and because it it denser than water it will slowly seep into the subsurface and stop on the nearest impermeable layer. Which in this case was a unit called the London Clay layer. We conducted soil borings throughout the site and determined the topographic surface of the clay layer beneath the site and identified a low point where the coal tar would naturally settle. We then installed a well at that low point and began recovering the coal tar through the well with specialized remediation equipment.

Least Favorite: tetrachloroethylene, its everywhere, sticks around in the environment forever, and it degrades into even worse chemicals, including vinyl chloride over time.

Oh man, I specialize in oil cleanups on land, I could give a 2-hour presentation on it and would still have so much to cover. However, for water, its much different. Oil spills to water and eventual cleanup of those spills is heavily dependent on the water body in which it was spilled. For oceans, you have to account for currents, waves, wind, etc. The short response is yes, kind of. You will be able to cleanup the visible oil or product but there is what is called the dissolved phase, which is much more difficult to cleanup since it is dissolved in the water itself. However, the dissolved phase is typically left unaddressed as those chemicals will quickly disperse in water and will quickly degrade as well. The general process therefore, relies on removing as much of the gross product as possible through absorbent and adsorbent material such as booms or oleophilic (attracts oily substances) floating devices.

The immediate area air monitoring results indicate that concentrations in the air should not cause any adverse health effects. However, air behaves differently at different levels within the atmosphere. The plume of air going up into the sky may travel quite a distance and may even travel in a different direction than the air at ground level. That being said, air concentrations are a function of volume, speed, and degradation over time and space (distance in the x,y, and z direction). So as it spreads the concentrations become more dilute. I would expect you would have more exposure to being near a running car than to anything from the Palestine spill site

The most difficult aspect of cleanup is identifying what needs to cleaned up. The initial process is easy, anything with staining, or a foul odor can easily be removed. However, chemicals can still have adverse health effects when you can't even detect the chemical through olfactory senses. As such, identifying contaminated areas beyond gross contamination through laboratory analysis is the only way to ensure nothing that poses a risk remains. This takes time and a lot of energy in the field, collecting samples, storing them, submitting them to a lab, etc. Then you have to wait for results before you can act. Once you have delineated the unseen contamination, you may begin to fully remediate the site.

​

Everything currently recommended in the workplan for the site is what I would normally recommend in this scenario, however, I can't offer any specific advice without seeing the raw data collected for soil and groundwater data in the area, which is not currently publicly available.

That is more of a mechanical engineering question, i don't have the expertise to comment on the best method to relieve a pressurized vessel which may explode. Additionally there isn't much public data on how that decision was reached.

I do not have a PE but i am currently studying to get my PE. Since I work for a small firm it hadn't really been necessary for me to get my PE up to this point. But as of a recent promotion the owner of the company has asked me to pursue my PE.

This is a complex problem with a lot of parts to consider, but I will attempt to address it with a back of the envelope evaluation. Global CO2 emissions were approximately 2.5 billion metric tons in 1900 and as of 2020 were around 33 billion metric tons according to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/visualizing-changes-carbon-dioxide-emissions-since-1900/). CO2 emissions account for 76% of the total greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In order to reach 1900 levels we would need to sequester around 30.5 billion metric tons per year.

It is estimated that about 55% of our current level of emissions are absorbed back or sequestered naturally through plant respiration and absorption into our oceans (which causes its own problems), but that leaves us with about 45% of 30.5 billion tons to sequester manually or about 13.725 billion tons. There was a recent technique that came out which is the cheapest method of sequestering carbon as of right now at $39 USD/ metric ton (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/24/new-technique-from-us-national-lab-to-remove-co2-at-record-low-cost.html). To capture that carbon, the top of the line models will use up to 30% of a power plants capacity to reduce 90% of the carbon output. Given that the majority of direct CO2 emissions are from power plants, lets simplify the problem a little bit by assuming that all carbon emissions come from power plants and to reduce carbon emissions we use this carbon capture technology.

EPA estimates that approximately 884.2 lbs of CO2 are emitted per megawatt-hour for a coal fired power plant (https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references#:~:text=The%20national%20average%20carbon%20dioxide,EPA%202021%3B%20EIA%202020b). For the 13.725 billion tons we discussed before, that would be about 15,522,506 mega-watt hours of generation capacity. Assuming the 30% from before, it would take 4,656,751 mega-watt hours of power to reduce the 13.725 billion tons by 90% (which would bring us down to 1.23525 billion tons). With the cost estimate of $39 USD/metric ton from before, it would cost about $482 billion USD and that is just operating costs, not including upfront costs of manufacturing the amount of systems that would be needed and installing them.

I need to throw in a disclaimer that this is a gross simplification of the problem and please don't quote me on this because I had to make a lot of simplifying assumptions.

It is unlikely that HCL would have rained on anyone other than the residents in nearby Palestine. The most up to date measurements of atmospheric concentrations of the plume that escaped from the fire show insignificant concentrations of acid rain forming chemicals such as HCL.

I wish, i would want the earth ring to I could actually see the contamination underground instead of having to dig for it XD.

Burning hazardous material is almost always a bad idea if it is uncontrolled. In controlled environments such as a flare or incinerator the risks are minimal. If they implemented the proper controls (e.g. air monitoring, evacuation, proper PPE) it can be a useful tool to prevent a worse outcome (e.g. a chemical explosion). I don't know the exact circumstances under which they had to make that decision but it should have been their last resort. If it comes out that there was a safer way and they just did it to save money or avoid rail line closure times, then that's pretty shitty and it potentially exposed the workers and nearby residents to hazardous chemicals for profit reasons.

Environmental remediation typically adheres to risk standards based on adverse health effects observed in toxicological studies. These can range from immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH), to burns, to difficulty breathing, and cancer risk factors. The symptoms people are encountering can be a mix of a few different things. Either they may be particularly sensitive (i.e. outside the standard deviations of the toxilogical study) or they may have had an acute exposure when the accident occurred. Current levels show that current exposure to air and groundwater is not a concern. I would say that surface water and soil near the site should be avoided.

Newly built homes may have elevated concentrations of VOCs from paint, varnishing, and other building supplies. If you believe there is a problem, you can rent what is called a Photo Ionization Detector (PID) from environmental rental equipment suppliers and measure the concentrations yourself or have a contractor perform a walkthrough with the device.

It can be disposed of in many different ways. Depending on the concentrations in the material and the media itself. For water, it can be solidified by pouring cement into it and then landfilling it or it may be able to be treated through a water treatment system (either public or private). For soil media, it may go to a normal landfill or it may need to be sent to a special hazardous waste landfill. Soil can also be incinerated at specialized hazardous waste incineration facilities (although that is quite expensive).

State and federal governments require that facilities evaluate potential exposure and notify nearby residents of potential exposures. So if no one is knocking on your door, or if you haven't received a notification from the state or someone else, then there probably isn't and immediate threat. However, that is based on known releases and doesn't necessarily account for fugitive emissions. If you are curious about what issues certain industries have around your neighborhood, a good place to start looking is the EPA ECHO website (see link below). You can pull up nearby facilities to see how well they are doing with compliance and in certain states you can look up the actual permits online anonymously. Other states may require an official FOIA request.

https://echo.epa.gov/

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/113s3bu/iama_environmental_engineer_ama_about_cleaning_up/j8zh4th?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3

phytoremediation, mycoremediation, and insect remediation are most effective in shallow heavy metal and plastics soil contamination. Anything deeper than about 3-5 feet and they lose effectiveness quite quickly. I have seen some promising insect remediation techniques for dealing with plastic wastes, but I don't think they have figured out how to implement it on a large scale yet.

I have a degree in environmental engineering which is a bachelors of science awarded by the college of engineering at the University of Georgia.

It is unclear what affects the plume will have further away without modeling data available, but as I mentioned in my other comment, long distance air exposure is somewhat unlikely given the nature of the chemicals released. They will tend to degrade and breakdown before they fall out of the atmosphere.

Look up Times Beach, Missouri

Definitely would avoid any surface water bodies for a while until they have been cleared if they are connected to any streams near the spill site. As far as drinking water goes, if its from a municipal water supply, your local government will test for those chemicals typically anyways, they should post the results somewhere online. If you have well drinking water, take a sniff of the water and if you smell anything you may want to get it tested (you should have it tested regularly anyways). Just because you smell something doesn't mean it poses a risk to you in the short term. Our olfactory senses can detect concentrations of chemicals well below laboratory detection limits.

I wouldn't know if it hasn't been reported, I can only go off of what is publicly available since I am not involved with the current cleanup efforts.

As of right now, based on the data available, staying away from the spill site is the best option (how much outside of the range is really dependent on the level of concentrations detected near the spill site and wind direction). If you are near the spill site, make sure that the air around your house is monitored frequently (recommended continuous monitoring). If you are well outside of the spill site, there isn't much concern as long as you don't get near any down gradient surface water bodies.

Look for universities or colleges that offer environmental engineering degrees and focus on your studies. Interning while in college is a great way to learn more about the industry as well.

See any superfund site or military base. They are riddled with problems that industry left behind when they went bankrupt or were just totally ignored due to "national defense priority" arguments, like burn pits in Iraq.

Absorption of chemicals into plant material or uptake generally is more of a concern with heavy metals contamination. VC and other VOCs do not readily absorb into plant matter, either through respiration or through the root structure. In fact, the use of phytoremediation is quite useful for shallow soil metal contamination as certain trees will clean the soil quite effectively. In those cases, the plant material itself is treated as potentially hazardous and is tested as such. Depending on the concentration in the plant material it may be deposited into a hazardous waste landfill or normal landfill but in most cases it is never burned.

It sounded like it was there last option, but we wont know until a full report comes out. Burning chemicals is allowed under certain circumstances to prevent a much worse outcome (e.g. an uncontrolled explosion or chain reaction of the chemical).

Ohio EPA and EPA have established a 560 ppb screening value for n-butyl acrylate based on the ATSDR Provisional Health Guidance Value (HGV). All of the hits (positive detections) within the Ohio River are well below this number, around 12.5 ppb at it's peak approximately 0.2 miles from the release site. The majority are between 1-2 ppb farther away from the site, just above laboratory detection limits.

https://epa.ohio.gov/static/Portals/47/citizen/response/East-Palestine-Ohio-River-Sampling-Data.pdf

No, i have not.

I am looking for a job as well can someone help me please

I do not have any experience dealing with medical waste, but they have their own regulations regarding the disposal practices required.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-173/subpart-E/section-173.197

Bullshitting in my field is what gets people killed or causes them to have increased risks of cancer, so no.