CHEROKEE, AL (WAFF) -
An explosion at a chemical plant in Colbert County sent a man to the hospital late Tuesday night.
Emergency crews responded to the explosion at the Cherokee Nitrogen plant on Industrial Road around 10 p.m.
Colbert County EMA officials said the explosion was a small one.
Residents from as far as Lauderdale County reported they heard a loud boom. Some residents reported the noise shook their homes.
Cherokee Plant General Manager Don Phillips said one employee was injured and sent to Helen Keller Hospital. The employee's name and condition have not been released but Phillips said his injuries were minor.
The explosion happened when a high pressure line ruptured as ammonia was being produced, according to Phillips.
He said there has been some damage to the plant, including some broken windows.
Phillips said the plant is conducting an investigation to determine what exactly caused the pressure line to burst.
The investigation could take days and repairs to the plant could take weeks.
Phillips attributed the loud explosion to the high-pressure nature of the ruptured line.
EMA Director Mike Melton said nothing leaked into the environment and any smells were from fumes. He said there should not have to be any testing done.
No details yet on whether surrounding homes sustained damage.
The Cherokee Fire Department was on the scene along with Colbert County Sheriff's deputies. Crews cleared the area by 1 a.m. Wednesday morning.
Melton said he was pleased with the response of both the plant workers and emergency responders.
Plant management estimates a three to five month outage at the ammonia plant while repairs are made.
Copyright 2012 WAFF. All rights reserved.
Source
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Water-quality ruling to be fought
An attorney representing the Great Bay Coalition communities intends to challenge a judge's recent ruling declining to give a judgment in the coalition's lawsuit against the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
Earlier this year, the coalition communities of Portsmouth, Exeter, Newmarket, Dover and Rochester filed suit in Merrimack Superior Court against N.H. DES, claiming they failed to conduct a formal and inclusive public rule-making process, as required by law, to establish scientifically defensible water quality standards in its 2009 criteria for the Great Bay estuary.
However, in a Nov. 7 ruling, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Richard McNamara declined to rule on the suit, saying that it's a federal matter and is nothing he can rule on.
At the heart of the issue for the coalition communities is the cost of upgrading their respective waste water treatment plants. The Environmental Protection Agency is suggesting a nitrogen limit of 3 milligrams per liter, in draft permits issued to Exeter, Newmarket and Dover. The EPA considers this standard the limit of technology and the most costly to implement.
The coalition communities claim N.H. DES is proposing arbitrary water quality standards, which are being followed by the EPA in issuing the permits, and that N.H. DES blocked efforts to allow public participation in an open peer review.
However, McNamara ruled that the EPA could issue stringent nitrogen permits, even without using the N.H. DES 2009 criteria. The 2009 criteria is part of the "Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the Great Bay Estuary," which sets out water quality criteria for nitrogen, algal growth and water clarity for all tidal waters of the estuary.
"Ultimately, the entity that makes any decisions that may harm Petitioners is the EPA. This court has no jurisdiction over the actions of federal administrative agencies such as the EPA," McNamara said in his ruling. "Even if this court ruled that a declaratory judgement is appropriate and that the 2009 criteria constitutes a rule that was improperly promulgated, this ruling would not assist Petitioners. The ruling would prohibit DES from relying on the 2009 criteria or enforcing water effluent limitations based on the 2009 criteria."
Tupper Kinder, attorney for the coalition communities, said he will likely file a motion for reconsideration at the end of this week
Earlier this year, the coalition communities of Portsmouth, Exeter, Newmarket, Dover and Rochester filed suit in Merrimack Superior Court against N.H. DES, claiming they failed to conduct a formal and inclusive public rule-making process, as required by law, to establish scientifically defensible water quality standards in its 2009 criteria for the Great Bay estuary.
However, in a Nov. 7 ruling, Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Richard McNamara declined to rule on the suit, saying that it's a federal matter and is nothing he can rule on.
At the heart of the issue for the coalition communities is the cost of upgrading their respective waste water treatment plants. The Environmental Protection Agency is suggesting a nitrogen limit of 3 milligrams per liter, in draft permits issued to Exeter, Newmarket and Dover. The EPA considers this standard the limit of technology and the most costly to implement.
The coalition communities claim N.H. DES is proposing arbitrary water quality standards, which are being followed by the EPA in issuing the permits, and that N.H. DES blocked efforts to allow public participation in an open peer review.
However, McNamara ruled that the EPA could issue stringent nitrogen permits, even without using the N.H. DES 2009 criteria. The 2009 criteria is part of the "Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the Great Bay Estuary," which sets out water quality criteria for nitrogen, algal growth and water clarity for all tidal waters of the estuary.
"Ultimately, the entity that makes any decisions that may harm Petitioners is the EPA. This court has no jurisdiction over the actions of federal administrative agencies such as the EPA," McNamara said in his ruling. "Even if this court ruled that a declaratory judgement is appropriate and that the 2009 criteria constitutes a rule that was improperly promulgated, this ruling would not assist Petitioners. The ruling would prohibit DES from relying on the 2009 criteria or enforcing water effluent limitations based on the 2009 criteria."
Tupper Kinder, attorney for the coalition communities, said he will likely file a motion for reconsideration at the end of this week
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Drinking Water Chlorination
A Review of Disinfection Practices and Issues
The treatment and distribution of water for safe use is one of the greatest achievements of the twentieth century. Before cities began routinely treating drinking water with chlorine (starting with Chicago and Jersey City in 1908), cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery and hepatitis A killed thousands of U.S. residents annually. Drinking water chlorination and filtration have helped to virtually eliminate these diseases in the U.S. and other developed countries.
Meeting the goal of clean, safe drinking water requires a multi-barrier approach that includes: protecting source water from contamination, appropriately treating raw water, and ensuring safe distribution of treated water to consumers taps.
During the treatment process, chlorine is added to drinking water as elemental chlorine (chlorine gas), sodium hypochlorite solution or dry calcium hypochlorite. When applied to water, each of these forms free chlorine, which destroys pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms.
Almost all U.S. systems that disinfect their water use some type of chlorine-based process, either alone or in combination with other disinfectants. In addition to controlling disease-causing organisms, chlorination offers a number of benefits including:
As importantly, only chlorine-based chemicals provide residual disinfectant levels that prevent microbial re-growth and help protect treated water throughout the distribution system.
The Risks of Waterborne Disease
Where adequate water treatment is not readily available, the impact on public health can be devastating. Worldwide, about 1.2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and twice that many lack adequate sanitation. As a result, the World Health Organization estimates that 3.4 million people, mostly children, die every year from water-related diseases.
Even where water treatment is widely practiced, constant vigilance is required to guard against waterborne disease outbreaks. Well-known pathogens such as E. coli are easily controlled with chlorination, but can cause deadly outbreaks given conditions of inadequate or no disinfection. A striking example occurred in May 2000 in the Canadian town of Walkerton, Ontario. Seven people died and more than 2,300 became ill after E. coli and other bacteria infected the town�s water supply. A report published by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General concludes that, even after the well was contaminated, the Walkerton disaster could have been prevented if the required chlorine residuals had been maintained.
Some emerging pathogens such as Cryptosporidium are resistant to chlorination and can appear even in high quality water supplies. Cryptosporidium was the cause of the largest reported drinking water outbreak in U.S. history, affecting over 400,000 people in Milwaukee in April 1993. More than 100 deaths are attributed to this outbreak. New regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will require water systems to monitor Cryptosporidium and adopt a range of treatment options based on source water Cryptosporidium concentrations. Most water systems are expected to meet EPA requirements while continuing to use chlorination.
The Challenge of Disinfection Byproducts
While protecting against microbial contamination is the top priority, water systems must also control disinfection byproducts (DBPs), chemical compounds formed unintentionally when chlorine and other disinfectants react with natural organic matter in water. In the early 1970s, EPA scientists first determined that drinking water chlorination could form a group of byproducts known as trihalomethanes (THMs), including chloroform. EPA set the first regulatory limits for THMs in 1979. While the available evidence does not prove that DBPs in drinking water cause adverse health effects in humans, high levels of these chemicals are certainly undesirable. Cost-effective methods to reduce DBP formation are available and should be adopted where possible. However, a report by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS 2000) strongly cautions:
The health risks from these byproducts at the levels at which they occur in drinking water are extremely small in comparison with the risks associated with inadequate disinfection. Thus, it is important that disinfection not be compromised in attempting to control such byproducts.
Recent EPA regulations have further limited THMs and other DBPs in drinking water. Most water systems are meeting these new standards by controlling the amount of natural organic material prior to disinfection.
Chlorine and Water System Security
The prospect of a terrorist attack has forced all water systems, large and small, to re-evaluate and upgrade existing security measures. Since September 11th, 2001, water system managers have taken unprecedented steps to protect against possible attacks such as chemical or biological contamination of the water supply, disruption of water treatment or distribution, and intentional release of treatment chemicals.
With passage of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002, Congress required community water systems to assess their vulnerability to a terrorist attack and other intentional acts. As part of these vulnerability assessments, systems assess the transportation, storage and use of treatment chemicals. These chemicals are both critical assets (necessary for delivering safe water) and potential vulnerabilities (may pose significant hazards, if released). Water systems using elemental chlorine, in particular, must determine whether existing protection systems are adequate. If not, they must consider additional measures to reduce the likelihood of an attack or to mitigate the potential consequences.
Disinfection is crucial to water system security, providing the front line of defense against biological contamination. However, conventional treatment barriers in no way guarantee safety from biological attacks. Additional research and funding are needed to improve prevention, detection and responses to potential threats.
The Future of Chlorine Disinfection
Despite a range of new challenges, drinking water chlorination will remain a cornerstone of waterborne disease prevention. Chlorine's wide array of benefits cannot be provided by any other single disinfectant. While alternative disinfectants (including chlorine dioxide, ozone, and ultraviolet radiation) are available, all disinfection methods have unique benefits, limitations, and costs. Water system managers must consider these factors, and design a disinfection approach to match each system's characteristics and source water quality.
In addition, world leaders increasingly recognize safe drinking water as a critical building block of sustainable development. Chlorination can provide cost-effective disinfection for remote rural villages and large cities alike, helping to bring safe water to those in need.
Source
A Review of Disinfection Practices and Issues
The treatment and distribution of water for safe use is one of the greatest achievements of the twentieth century. Before cities began routinely treating drinking water with chlorine (starting with Chicago and Jersey City in 1908), cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery and hepatitis A killed thousands of U.S. residents annually. Drinking water chlorination and filtration have helped to virtually eliminate these diseases in the U.S. and other developed countries.
Meeting the goal of clean, safe drinking water requires a multi-barrier approach that includes: protecting source water from contamination, appropriately treating raw water, and ensuring safe distribution of treated water to consumers taps.
During the treatment process, chlorine is added to drinking water as elemental chlorine (chlorine gas), sodium hypochlorite solution or dry calcium hypochlorite. When applied to water, each of these forms free chlorine, which destroys pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms.
Almost all U.S. systems that disinfect their water use some type of chlorine-based process, either alone or in combination with other disinfectants. In addition to controlling disease-causing organisms, chlorination offers a number of benefits including:
- Reduces many disagreeable tastes and odors;
- Eliminates slime bacteria, molds and algae that commonly grow in water supply reservoirs, on the walls of water mains and in storage tanks;
- Removes chemical compounds that have unpleasant tastes and hinder disinfection; and
- Helps remove iron and manganese from raw water.
As importantly, only chlorine-based chemicals provide residual disinfectant levels that prevent microbial re-growth and help protect treated water throughout the distribution system.
The Risks of Waterborne Disease
Where adequate water treatment is not readily available, the impact on public health can be devastating. Worldwide, about 1.2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water, and twice that many lack adequate sanitation. As a result, the World Health Organization estimates that 3.4 million people, mostly children, die every year from water-related diseases.
Even where water treatment is widely practiced, constant vigilance is required to guard against waterborne disease outbreaks. Well-known pathogens such as E. coli are easily controlled with chlorination, but can cause deadly outbreaks given conditions of inadequate or no disinfection. A striking example occurred in May 2000 in the Canadian town of Walkerton, Ontario. Seven people died and more than 2,300 became ill after E. coli and other bacteria infected the town�s water supply. A report published by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General concludes that, even after the well was contaminated, the Walkerton disaster could have been prevented if the required chlorine residuals had been maintained.
Some emerging pathogens such as Cryptosporidium are resistant to chlorination and can appear even in high quality water supplies. Cryptosporidium was the cause of the largest reported drinking water outbreak in U.S. history, affecting over 400,000 people in Milwaukee in April 1993. More than 100 deaths are attributed to this outbreak. New regulations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will require water systems to monitor Cryptosporidium and adopt a range of treatment options based on source water Cryptosporidium concentrations. Most water systems are expected to meet EPA requirements while continuing to use chlorination.
The Challenge of Disinfection Byproducts
While protecting against microbial contamination is the top priority, water systems must also control disinfection byproducts (DBPs), chemical compounds formed unintentionally when chlorine and other disinfectants react with natural organic matter in water. In the early 1970s, EPA scientists first determined that drinking water chlorination could form a group of byproducts known as trihalomethanes (THMs), including chloroform. EPA set the first regulatory limits for THMs in 1979. While the available evidence does not prove that DBPs in drinking water cause adverse health effects in humans, high levels of these chemicals are certainly undesirable. Cost-effective methods to reduce DBP formation are available and should be adopted where possible. However, a report by the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS 2000) strongly cautions:
The health risks from these byproducts at the levels at which they occur in drinking water are extremely small in comparison with the risks associated with inadequate disinfection. Thus, it is important that disinfection not be compromised in attempting to control such byproducts.
Recent EPA regulations have further limited THMs and other DBPs in drinking water. Most water systems are meeting these new standards by controlling the amount of natural organic material prior to disinfection.
Chlorine and Water System Security
The prospect of a terrorist attack has forced all water systems, large and small, to re-evaluate and upgrade existing security measures. Since September 11th, 2001, water system managers have taken unprecedented steps to protect against possible attacks such as chemical or biological contamination of the water supply, disruption of water treatment or distribution, and intentional release of treatment chemicals.
With passage of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002, Congress required community water systems to assess their vulnerability to a terrorist attack and other intentional acts. As part of these vulnerability assessments, systems assess the transportation, storage and use of treatment chemicals. These chemicals are both critical assets (necessary for delivering safe water) and potential vulnerabilities (may pose significant hazards, if released). Water systems using elemental chlorine, in particular, must determine whether existing protection systems are adequate. If not, they must consider additional measures to reduce the likelihood of an attack or to mitigate the potential consequences.
Disinfection is crucial to water system security, providing the front line of defense against biological contamination. However, conventional treatment barriers in no way guarantee safety from biological attacks. Additional research and funding are needed to improve prevention, detection and responses to potential threats.
The Future of Chlorine Disinfection
Despite a range of new challenges, drinking water chlorination will remain a cornerstone of waterborne disease prevention. Chlorine's wide array of benefits cannot be provided by any other single disinfectant. While alternative disinfectants (including chlorine dioxide, ozone, and ultraviolet radiation) are available, all disinfection methods have unique benefits, limitations, and costs. Water system managers must consider these factors, and design a disinfection approach to match each system's characteristics and source water quality.
In addition, world leaders increasingly recognize safe drinking water as a critical building block of sustainable development. Chlorination can provide cost-effective disinfection for remote rural villages and large cities alike, helping to bring safe water to those in need.
Source
Friday, November 9, 2012
Recycling Ammonia Emissions as Fertiliser
One of the costs of running a farm can include buying nitrogen in the form of anhydrous ammonia to fertilise crops. But there are other agricultural costs associated with nitrogen, especially when the nitrogen in livestock waste produces pungent - and potentially harmful - ammonia emissions.
But on 20 June 2011, Agricultural Research Service soil scientists, Matias Vanotti and Ariel Szogi, filed US Patent Application #13/164,363 for an invention that could help change on-farm nitrogen management. It is a system that uses gas-permeable membranes to capture and recycle ammonia from livestock wastewater before the ammonia goes into the air. The two scientists, who work at the ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center in Florence, South Carolina, found that they could use these membranes to reduce ammonia emissions from livestock waste and capture concentrated liquid nitrogen that could be sold as fertiliser.
The membranes are similar to materials already used in waterproof outdoor gear and in biomedical devices that add oxygen and remove carbon dioxide from blood. Using these materials, the scientists recorded an average removal rate of 45 to 153 milligrams (mg) of ammonia per litre per day when manure ammonia concentrations ranged from 138 to 302mg ammonia per litre.
When manure pH increased, ammonia recovery also increased. For instance, the scientists were able to recover around 1.2 per cent of the total ammonia emissions per hour from manure with a pH of 8.3. But the recovery rate increased 10 times - to 13 per cent per hour - when the pH was 10.0.
In a follow-up study, Vanotti and Szogi immersed the membrane module into liquid manure that had 1,290mg of ammonia per litre. After nine days, the total ammonia concentration decreased about 50 per cent to 663mg per litre, and the pH decreased from 8.1 to 7.0. This meant that the gaseous, or free, ammonia in the liquid - the portion of the total ammonia linked to ammonia emissions - decreased 95 per cent from 114.2 to 5.4mg per litre. Using the same process in 10 consecutive batches of raw swine manure, they recovered concentrated nitrogen in a clear solution that contained 53,000mg of ammonia per litre.
"When we started this research more than 10 years ago, the membranes were very expensive," Dr Vanotti says. "But the prices have come down, so its use for recovering the ammonia in manure is now much more cost-effective."
The scientists want to scale up the process to see whether the membrane modules would lower ammonia emissions when installed in manure pits below the slotted floors in swine barns or in manure tanks and lagoons. If so, they believe that livestock producers could use the technology to help meet air-quality regulations, save fuel, protect the health of livestock and their human caretakers, improve livestock productivity and recover nitrogen that can be sold as fertiliser.
Source: http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/4130/recycling-ammonia-emissions-as-fertiliser
But on 20 June 2011, Agricultural Research Service soil scientists, Matias Vanotti and Ariel Szogi, filed US Patent Application #13/164,363 for an invention that could help change on-farm nitrogen management. It is a system that uses gas-permeable membranes to capture and recycle ammonia from livestock wastewater before the ammonia goes into the air. The two scientists, who work at the ARS Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center in Florence, South Carolina, found that they could use these membranes to reduce ammonia emissions from livestock waste and capture concentrated liquid nitrogen that could be sold as fertiliser.
The membranes are similar to materials already used in waterproof outdoor gear and in biomedical devices that add oxygen and remove carbon dioxide from blood. Using these materials, the scientists recorded an average removal rate of 45 to 153 milligrams (mg) of ammonia per litre per day when manure ammonia concentrations ranged from 138 to 302mg ammonia per litre.
When manure pH increased, ammonia recovery also increased. For instance, the scientists were able to recover around 1.2 per cent of the total ammonia emissions per hour from manure with a pH of 8.3. But the recovery rate increased 10 times - to 13 per cent per hour - when the pH was 10.0.
In a follow-up study, Vanotti and Szogi immersed the membrane module into liquid manure that had 1,290mg of ammonia per litre. After nine days, the total ammonia concentration decreased about 50 per cent to 663mg per litre, and the pH decreased from 8.1 to 7.0. This meant that the gaseous, or free, ammonia in the liquid - the portion of the total ammonia linked to ammonia emissions - decreased 95 per cent from 114.2 to 5.4mg per litre. Using the same process in 10 consecutive batches of raw swine manure, they recovered concentrated nitrogen in a clear solution that contained 53,000mg of ammonia per litre.
"When we started this research more than 10 years ago, the membranes were very expensive," Dr Vanotti says. "But the prices have come down, so its use for recovering the ammonia in manure is now much more cost-effective."
The scientists want to scale up the process to see whether the membrane modules would lower ammonia emissions when installed in manure pits below the slotted floors in swine barns or in manure tanks and lagoons. If so, they believe that livestock producers could use the technology to help meet air-quality regulations, save fuel, protect the health of livestock and their human caretakers, improve livestock productivity and recover nitrogen that can be sold as fertiliser.
Source: http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/4130/recycling-ammonia-emissions-as-fertiliser
Thursday, November 8, 2012
A15/81 Dissolved Sulfide Monitor
Sulfides can be found naturally in well water and can build up in wastewater collection systems due to anaerobic conditions that frequently occur. They are also used in mercury removal processes and are frequently found in tanning wastes. In drinking water systems, sulfides cause taste and odor problems. In wastewater systems, they can cause damage to concrete structures in collection systems and contribute to odor problems in treatment facilities.
Measurement of dissolved sulfide concentrations has been done primarily by the use of analyzers employing selective ion electrodes (SIE) for sensing. While providing adequate sensitivity, SIE based systems require frequent zero and span adjustments to maintain measurement accuracy. Because of this, most SIE based monitoring systems are relatively expensive and require frequent service.
ATI’s Model A15/81 Dissolved Sulfide Monitor provides an improved method for measuring sulfides in solution. Rather than using an SIE sensor, the A15/81 employs a polarographic H2S gas sensor that is isolated from the sample. The result is a system that can operate continuously on many types of water and wastewater streams with minimal maintenance and adjustment.
The A15/81Monitor takes a unique approach to the measurement of sulfide in solution. In operation, a small amount of sample is pumped into the system and mixed with acid. In acidic solution, hydrosulfide and sulfide ions (HS- and S-2 ) are converted to hydrogen sulfide. The mixed sample flows into a special chamber where the hydrogen sulfide is stripped from the sample. A sensor located in the gas stream measures the released H2S concentration and displays the results in terms of equivalent sulfide ion concentration in mg/l.
Because sulfide measurements are often made in samples of poor quality, fouling of the analytical system has been a major concern. An important feature of the A15/81 system is the fact that the sensor never comes in contact with the sample. Only the gas stream containing the stripped H2S reaches the sensor. The result is a system that will continue to function, regardless of the quality of the sample. The only requirement is that large particulate be strained from the sample. The analytical system will easily pass particulate as large as 100 microns, so only course screening is required.
Learn more here
City watches water quality following vote
There’s no chloramine going into city drinking water just yet.
City voters narrowly, 3,402 to 3,178, rejected a bond issue for a new filtration system Tuesday. The $5.5 million project was one of two options for bringing the city into compliance with federal drinking water standards. With the bond having failed, Public Works Commissioner Evan Pilachowski is poised to implement the other option, a change of the disinfectant from chlorine to chloramine.
But not quite yet.
At issue is the level of haloacetic acids and other byproducts of the disinfection process in the water. The byproducts are created when chlorine reacts with organic matter in the source water.
The byproduct levels were roughly constant, but the EPA lowered the acceptable maximum several years ago, putting the city in violation and on the path that eventually led to Tuesday’s vote.
However, the last two quarterly tests showed the levels had dropped below the federal threshold.
A recount of Tuesday’s vote is a possibility.
Opposition to chloramine was motivated by claims about health problems supposedly linked to the chemical in other water systems using it.
Even if a petition for a second vote were circulated, it would not be binding.
A recount of Tuesday’s vote is also a possibility.
Costello said the 3.4 percent margin of the vote falls within the 5 percent margin that allows any city voter to request a recount. A request would need to be made to the city clerk with 10 days of the election, the city attorney said.
Source: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20121108/NEWS01/711089891
City voters narrowly, 3,402 to 3,178, rejected a bond issue for a new filtration system Tuesday. The $5.5 million project was one of two options for bringing the city into compliance with federal drinking water standards. With the bond having failed, Public Works Commissioner Evan Pilachowski is poised to implement the other option, a change of the disinfectant from chlorine to chloramine.
But not quite yet.
At issue is the level of haloacetic acids and other byproducts of the disinfection process in the water. The byproducts are created when chlorine reacts with organic matter in the source water.
The byproduct levels were roughly constant, but the EPA lowered the acceptable maximum several years ago, putting the city in violation and on the path that eventually led to Tuesday’s vote.
However, the last two quarterly tests showed the levels had dropped below the federal threshold.
A recount of Tuesday’s vote is a possibility.
Opposition to chloramine was motivated by claims about health problems supposedly linked to the chemical in other water systems using it.
Even if a petition for a second vote were circulated, it would not be binding.
A recount of Tuesday’s vote is also a possibility.
Costello said the 3.4 percent margin of the vote falls within the 5 percent margin that allows any city voter to request a recount. A request would need to be made to the city clerk with 10 days of the election, the city attorney said.
Source: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20121108/NEWS01/711089891
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Fire breaks out at chlorine products company
Tulsa police shut down roads around the industrial area northeast of 41st and South Sheridan early Tuesday morning after a fire broke out at a spa-supply store, which contained chemicals.
Just before 4 a.m. smoke was spotted coming from the Nature's Choice Spa Products facility in the 6900 block of East 38th Street, just northeast of the 41st and Sheridan intersection.
Fire and HAZMAT officials were concerned because chlorine and other pool-related chemicals are stored in the building.
Several streets in the area were shut down while officials monitored wind conditions.
Chlorine is a toxic gas the irritates the respiratory system.
Officials still urge people with breathing problems are to stay indoors and away from the area.
Drivers were urged to avoid Sheridan from 36th to 41st and Memorial from 36th to 41st for about two hours.
Source: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/fire-breaks-out-at-chlorine-products-company#ixzz2BYFMcO6r
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)