Pollution and runoff from tunnel walls, ceilings, and floors

Well, since the early 1990s, that’s where we’ve been headed, and are rapidly approaching that point. Note that’s an objective statement, not a political viewpoint - to wit:

Under the Federal Clean Water Act’s ‘‘NPDES’’ = ‘‘National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System’’ permitting scheme, storm water discharges from ‘‘point source discharges’’ - specific, concentrated locations like pipes, channels, etc. have been gradually swept into the NPDES net. It started with the larger cities in 1990 as ‘Phase I’ - in Pennsylvania, it was just the 4 largest, being Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Erie. Next, starting around 1995 through 2001 nationwide - and around 2003 in Pennsylvania, since we were a ‘hold-out’ - the permitting scheme expanded t

As in, “if we shut down that tunnel, we can get rid of trains on this line?”

You know, I hate to admit it, but I hadn’t thought that far ahead/ out to that scenario - I was still stuck in the ‘‘Get a permit, keep it separate/ isolate and clean it up, treat it, etc.’’ mode.

But sure - some anti-railroad and purported pro-environmental group could take the position that the only/ best way to really stop the tunnel drainage ‘pollution evil’ for good is to plug the tunnel with concrete . . . which would of course be the end for the trains.

Yet another ‘word to the wise’ to ‘keep their noses clean’ in that regard, so that any such action won’t get any traction to get very far.

Don’t think I’ll be playing chess or poker with you anytime soon, Larry - nothing personal, but when we’re done I think I might have to ask for carfare home . . . [swg]

  • Paul North.

You’d have no problem with chess - I can identify most of the pieces and might remember a couple of the moves…

With poker I might just get lucky. Or not…[:D]

Just a clarifying note on this:

Implied - but not expressly stated - in what I wrote above is pretty much what RWM was describing. Specifically, under this program each state’s DOT and the affected MS4s each have to obtain their own permits for all discharges from their highways that reach streams as a ‘point source’ or ‘concentrated flow’. Whether actual ‘treatment’ is required or needed depends on the water quality standards that have been established for the receiving stream, and how ‘contaminated’ the discharge is. So far, I’m aware of very few instances where that has been a problem for the DOTs and MS4S. But a few truck stops or service plazas, such as along the Pennsylvania Turnpike - as ‘industrial facilities’, though - have had problems with de-icing salt and misc. petroleum-based ‘releases’. [V]

What was kind of surprising is how many of the more rural municipalities and townships had no map or inventory of their discharge points, or where that water came from, other than the memory of the Road Supervisor or Streets Dept. Foreman types . . . [:-^]

  • Paul North.