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 think you meant 8260D for the solid waste media. You can get equipment to look for one chemical in particular yes, but i think a PID/FID to start, maybe a mini or multiRAE would be best to monitor for long period and if it gets above the established thresholds then you could notify EPA and they could take care of the speciation of the chemicals.

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 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

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

It would have to be my little rubber ducky i inherited when I took my office space (see below)

https://imgur.com/a/gocGuwS

The news report states that it was water collected from the ground on their property. It does not mention any testing whatsoever. There are many reasons why that water might be green, including that it may be related to the release, but without testing, there is no way to know. This is not water from the tap. All tap water monitoring in the area has come up clean so far. https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/midwest/train-derailment-east-palestine-resident-refuses-sign-form/

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/

Regarding the drinking/tap water, if you are going to make claims like this, then please provide evidence. Without evidence, people can make all types of claims. Air is the primary concern for nearby residents as it is the only complete exposure pathway at the moment unless they are rolling around in the mud near the spill site. HAZMAT crews who specialize in Level A/B PPE (respirators) can cleanup the site in timed intervals using a zoned cleanup plan.

I worked at a bulk liquid storage terminal once where they stored turpentine. I couldn't get the smell out of my nose or clothes for like a week but all air monitoring in the area was clean. Smell is a weird thing and its amazing how powerful our noses can be.

They are performing real time and continuous air monitoring in the nearby area, which is standard protocol and should alert them to any potential VOCs in the air. If VOCs were at a level where PPE would be recommended I would urge my client (if they were my client) to evacuate the area instead, because PPE isn't a shield, its a band-aid which can prevent short term exposure but not a good long term solution. Air concentrations dissipate quickly radiating outwards, but may be concentrated in a particular wind direction. As long as they maintain this procedure, the town shouldn't need to worry about air exposure, unless wind conditions change. My understanding of the EPA's hesitation was the evaluation of the immediate area of the spill site, which is understandable but the workplan that the Norfolk consultants proposed included the removal of source material in the area. This requires specialized HAZMAT teams if the air in the immediate area of the site still poses an inhalation risk.

I found the laboratory analytical results for the surface water samples at the site, apparently one of the bottles broke in transit from the site to the lab, so I think you are right about not having enough sample for the analysis.

Ohio EPA has released preliminary results for surface water samples collected throughout the Ohio River Basin. It appears that butyl acrylate was detected in surface water samples along this basin in several places. The detections are in the parts per billion (PPB) range which is quite low, however, there are no current drinking water or exposure standards for surface water for butyl acrylate. Without those risk standards, it is impossible to ascertain what current risks these results may pose to anyone fishing, swimming, or inadvertently drinking the water. Drinking water intakes from the river basin should remain OK as the water is treated before it is pumped into homes anyway. Anyone who lives near the areas listed in the following link should exercise caution and avoid direct contact with the river basin water and sediments.

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

Disclaimer: I do not work for any government agency. I do not represent Norfolk Southern or any of their contractors. I am an outside observer providing my knowledge to the public. My recommendations are based on an abundance of caution and coming in contact with the surface water may or may not pose an actual risk. But without concrete risk numbers to compare to from a toxicological report, it is impossible for anyone to say if the levels are safe or not for sure.

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.

I wanted to thank everyone for there questions. This is my first AMA but I will certainly do more in the future if I see a need or if their is interest. I will still monitor this post, however, given my work schedule I can't dedicate a lot of time to online questions when my clients also have questions.

I highly doubt they are concerned with a matter of convenience in this scenario and I also doubt they are shipping these samples rather than direct transport for faster results.

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).

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 :).

Thanks! A lot of my job is relaying very technical data to people who may not have technical backgrounds, so i have a bag full of analogies on hand XD.

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.

I'm not saying they aren't paying attention to it, just that I haven't seen anything in the public space at the moment.

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).

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.