Monday, January 31st 2022

Toxic Spillage at Samsung Austin Leaves "Virtually no Surviving Aquatic Life"

Electronic waste isn't the only environmental concern when it comes to technological manufacturing; toxic byproducts also have to be contended with, with tech companies spending millions of dollars to comply with environmental disposal regulations. Sometimes, however, things don't go as they're supposed to. Such was the case with a toxic spillage from Samsung's Austin, Texas manufacturing facility, which spilled the equivalent of 763,000 gallons of acid waste towards a nearby stormwater pond. This same pond ultimately feeds into a tributary of the Harris Branch Creek in Northeast Austin.

The spillage is estimated to have occurred over 100+ days, and the consequences are severe. According to a report published by an Environmental Officer working for Austin City Council, the spillage left "virtually no surviving aquatic life" due to it lowering the water body's pH down to levels between 2 and 3 (which is deadly toxic even for adult aquatic life). According to Samsung, it stopped the discharges as soon as they were noticed, saying that "a majority of the wastewater was contained on-site; however, a portion was inadvertently released into an unnamed small tributary that is upstream of Harris Branch Creek." The company further stated it has hired a cleanup specialist, with aims to "restore the tributary" and prevent dissemination of the toxic waste throughout the main branch of the Harris Branch Creek.
State-appointed investigators have in the meantime confirmed that the toxic discharge has ceased, and measured recovering pH levels between January 14th and January 19th, which so far seem to have normalized at the expected pH 6.7 and 8.5 interval. The damage to aquatic life is done, however, and recovery efforts will still have to be monitored.
Source: Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

78 Comments on Toxic Spillage at Samsung Austin Leaves "Virtually no Surviving Aquatic Life"

#76
80-watt Hamster
TheGuruStudThat's what collection ponds are for. Unless enough leaked into the creek to kill fish, then it doesn't matter.

Meanwhile, the media conveniently forgot about the largest environmental disaster in the US before deep horizon in one news cycle.
Can anyone name it?
The report describes the pond as a stormwater holding pond; whether or not that pond was meant to also contain wastewater isn't mentioned. Fishkill as of report date is limited to the tributary, which is encouraging given the duration of the leak, if not exactly "good".

Everything (almost) gets forgotten in one news cycle. Coverage for this (judged by Google news search) seems mostly in tech publications and local outlets; not exactly what one would call a media firestorm. But no; I can't name the disaster you mean. I also mostly live under a self-imposed rock, though.
Posted on Reply
#77
skates
80-watt HamsterThe report describes the pond as a stormwater holding pond; whether or not that pond was meant to also contain wastewater isn't mentioned. Fishkill as of report date is limited to the tributary, which is encouraging given the duration of the leak, if not exactly "good".

Everything (almost) gets forgotten in one news cycle. Coverage for this (judged by Google news search) seems mostly in tech publications and local outlets; not exactly what one would call a media firestorm. But no; I can't name the disaster you mean. I also mostly live under a self-imposed rock, though.
In our community we have several stormwater holding ponds which are used for irrigating grass and common areas. I can't even imagine how they could have tied into the stormwater ponds in the first place. They'd have to get a permit from the city, for sure and possibly from the state as well, depending on who owns the ponds. Regardless, someone gave them permission to tie into the ponds, so I wonder if there was full disclosure during the approval process of what materials would be transferred to the ponds? I've been thru this process in my community, adding a second pump to our community holding pond and the process was burdensome, to say the least. The city and state micromanaged every aspect of what seemed a simple request. So, I'm thinking there is more to this story, much more.
Posted on Reply
#78
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
ArctucasFines are useless.

Punishment needs to fit the offense.

The top executives at the facility need to be made to personally clean up the spill manually.

Then they need an additional ten years at hard labor in a federal penitentiary.
The ones who caused the spill and the 1s who allowed it to continue should be held accountable. Also fines shouldn't allow them to increase prices on the end user.
80-watt HamsterThe report describes the pond as a stormwater holding pond; whether or not that pond was meant to also contain wastewater isn't mentioned. Fishkill as of report date is limited to the tributary, which is encouraging given the duration of the leak, if not exactly "good".

Everything (almost) gets forgotten in one news cycle. Coverage for this (judged by Google news search) seems mostly in tech publications and local outlets; not exactly what one would call a media firestorm. But no; I can't name the disaster you mean. I also mostly live under a self-imposed rock, though.
Storm water is not waste water, it is why it is illegal to dump paint, acid, oil, propylene glycol in a storm drain $10,000 fine on a regular person for doing it in the US, possible arrest.

Storm water can be ran through a surface water treatment plant to make it potable.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 19th, 2024 10:37 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts