Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unilever dumping in Hammonasset River
#1
quote:

CLINTON -- The town is scrambling to find local beauty product maker, Unilever Home and Personal Care, another spot to discharge its treated waste and prevent the company from piping it into the Hammonasset River.

The town's quest to protect the Hammonasset holds promise for Long Island Sound, as the town moves forward on an ambitious and long-promised plan to handle Unilever's waste, as well as its own sewage and runoff water. The Hammonasset empties into three town beaches and Hammonasset Beach State Park.

Clinton has two weeks to show the Department of Environmental Protection it has a viable solution. If not, Unilever will run a pipe down Route 1 into the Hammonasset. The showdown comes as the town pushes to upgrade the river to drinking-water status, to revive its failed oyster beds and improve its beaches' water quality.

The push to restore the Hammonasset received a boost last month when the board of selectmen voted unanimously to ban waste discharge into the Hammonasset, except as a last resort. If the DEP allows Unilever, the second-largest taxpayer in Clinton, to discharge into the Hammonasset, local residents worry a precedent would be set.

"We want to do nothing to degrade the river," said Ron Nash, an engineer who sits on the Clinton water pollution control commission.

The state has pressured Clinton, Westbrook and Old Saybrook for decades to build sewer plants to reduce sewage flowing into Long Island Sound. The towns have been slow to act.

Clinton has been under a consent order since 1997 to fix its pollution problems. State Environmental Protection Commissioner Arthur Rocque Jr. recently referred the case to the attorney general, in an effort to force the town into compliance.

The town's concern for the Hammonasset is a recent phenomenon, Rocque said. Clinton originally identified the Hammonasset as a site for a potential sewer plant, but later backed away from the idea.

Recently, Rocque found himself at the center of controversy over a memo he received from a Unilever lawyer. In the October letter, Unilever thanked the commissioner for helping to "find a way to make the direct discharge into the Hammonasset River administratively possible." The memo was forwarded to Clinton officials, who were furious at Rocque's position.

Rocque defended his actions. "We don't want to see them held hostage because the town refuses to move," he said.

He denied accusations from some town residents that the DEP wants to keep the Hammonasset a second-class stream, to maintain it as a discharge area. "We're in the business of cleaning up Long Island Sound's troubles, not making them worse," Rocque said.

If Unilever does divert its discharge into the Hammonasset, the quantity would be small enough that it would not pose any risk to swimmers, he added.

Some residents disagree, saying allowing the discharge would load nutrients into the river, harming wildlife and posing a danger to swimmers. Residents believe this will pose long-term damage because allowing Unilever to dump into the Hammonasset would set a precedent for other companies.

Clinton wants to build a small treatment plant for waste from Unilever and other troubled spots in town. The treated waste would then be discharged into a giant leaching field.

It could take years, though, to complete the project, and Unilever has only until January 2005 to find an alternative discharge area to Hayden Creek, which feeds the Hammonasset. The state says the tidal creek is too small to absorb 16,000 gallons of wastewater a day.

The water pollution control commission plans to ask the DEP to extend Unilever's permit while it designs a system. Unilever is cautiously backing Clinton's plan. "We're open to cost-effective solutions," plant manager Larry Gibson said. The DEP says it also will support a plan that works.

Unilever employs 550 people locally. It makes Dove face cream, Ponds cold cream, Vaseline petroleum jelly and hair spray. Sanitary waste and industrial waste - from washing tanks - are byproducts.
River In Line For Waste
Town Has 2 Weeks To Find Plan For Treated Discharge

February 16, 2004
By KIM MARTINEAU, Courant Staff Writer


ctfisherman.]
[signature]
Reply
#2
if you know of any one who is going to attend that meating arm them with that fish fungus report of yours.

things are bad enuff. and you dont want things to get worse.

make them find new less invasive products or find other processess that wont involve waists that will need to be disposed of in rivers, ground waters and holding tanks.

there is no excuse for running a bussness in a manor that harms the invironment directly and me indirectly. I eat them tunas caught in the ociean that that river dumps in to....
[signature]
Reply
#3
It appears Dave that the fungus problem is seperate from the unilever situation. AND THE LOCALS ARE UP INARMS ON THIS ISSUE. LOOKS LIKE THEY WILL HAVE TO CLEAN UP OR GET OUT!! A Quote from another board in state.>> I know many people at the Unilever corporate level. In fact, I met the Chief Operating Officer a few weeks back.

The Clinton plant is old. Unilever is in a huge consolidation mode, closing many plants throughout the world. HERE'S ANOTHER ONE>>>

I can assure you, if pushed and if not allowed to do something reasonable with the discharge, they will shut the plant and move producti I've spent way too much time on this site today. I'm an Environmental Engineer at Sikorsky. I work on waste water issues. Basically most industries disharge waste water to either the sewer or to surface waters - different permits are required. Permit limits are very tough - John is correct - in many cases "tap water" can not be discharged -the chlorine limits and even copper put in by the water companies make the discharge slightly toxic and often fail permit limits. While I have not examined the issue related to Unilever - the permit limits mandated by the state are very PROTECTIVE. The waste waters generated by boating activities would be much more toxic than this discharge (we all have some type of impact). There is no way you could have industry and not have waste water discharges - those discharges are managed and for the most part the impact by them is slight (sewage treatment is a different subject). We all generate wastes/waste water and all have an impact. Wise management is the solution - zero discharge is a nice concept but often not reality. Wash water from our boats/fish cleaning tables is also somewhat "toxic". on elsewhere. They've not really threatened this publically, but I know it's in the cards.

Who will hurt from this?? Not Unilever, but the hundreds of local employees. Consider this when you view them as a "big bad corporation"


Before anyone flies off the handle on the word "discharge", a careful analysis needs to be done as to what the effluent is that is being sent into the river.

Everything I've read shows a discharge that makes our drinking water seem like pollution. The levels of heavy metals are below what you and I are allowed to drink.

In many cases, factories aren't allowed to discharge tap water since it has contaminants far above the allowable discharge levels.
[signature]
Reply
#4
There is no doubt that they pay up the wazoo for permits with standards they strugle to live up to. I for one am not singling them out, I say this from the point where I worked inside of those factories where there were not susposed to be any discharge of any kind. The shop I worked at bought two 500 gallon tanks to hold used cutting oils. They dumped close to that a week on the floor and out in to the sewer that leads to surounding ground water suply. they interned had to bring in city water and each home had to pay 10 Thousand dollars each to hook up along with the 14 thousand dollars each home had to pay when the the water main when across the front of thier properties.

yes you are right that every single person on this planet is guilty of releasing toxic waist. every home with toilet bowls that are snow white has had 10 pounds of toxic materials gone down its trap every year. From commet type cleansers, detergents, bleach, florides, and the list goes on and on. and there is the body products that go down. I cant count the number of beaches closed evey year now because the storm drains run in to rivers that run in to lakes that carrys human sewage to local lakes on its way out to the great lakes.

it is bad enuff when years ago they designed our systems to run sewage and storm drains together but for them to continue this pratice today when they know full well the environmental impacts is criminal. Yes it will cost more money to build sepreat systems. It will also create much neaded jobs as well.

And yes those fishing motors have a great impact on heavy metals in the waters but is over looked by the governments because of the finacial impact.

Might I say it is a pleasure to talk to some one who knows the score from thier side of the streat. "Thank You"

I know the score from my side of the streat. It aint pretty, it aint leagle, but it happens all to often.

Every other day just about here in south east michigan the news is reporting that another river has been contaminated by materials like pbb's murcury used motor oil and no body seems to know where it comes from because every thing can be dumped in to a floor drain from inside a shop and it runs streaght in to storm drains which gets flushed in to the rivers every time it rains.

I dont believe that this problem is just indiginous to Detroit, it happens all over the world every day.

Polution controlls are only as good as the integrity of the owner of the company.

we used to have bounties here in michigan for people who caught companies dumping, now if you call in to report you are the one who will be harrased if you are not politely egnored by the DEWQ.

there is a 55 gallon drum sitting in the swamp behind my property in the swamp, it has been there for at least 30 years and I cant get any one to come out and address the problem. I have no idea what is in it, it is leaking now and killing plants.

Toxic dumping by corporations is like a speeding car going down the road, there is nothing to stop him till he crashes from exceeding the limits one time to many unless we pay some one to put on a uniform and pass on to him a paper reminder. Or just show up behind the back door and pick up soil samples and drain samples.

This is one of my pet peaves. because I hear about it every day. thats the joys of living in an industrial area.

All I am saying it is worth taking the time to do it right, trying to save a dime now and paying a dollar later to fix the problem that will not go away on its own is just bad business all the way around. When corporations find that more and more towns dont want that kind of busness in their comunities they will find ways to do the job. "Nesessity is the Mother of Invention"

there are towns in northern michigan tennessee pensilvania kentucky verginia that were abandoned because coal corporations though that strip mining was the cats meow and saved millions. it cost billions to clean up this mess and divert rivers and water ways to trap and contain the acids.

I can remember in my child hood when auto shops got paid to just dumped used motor oils down dirt roads to keep the dust down.

I could go on and on and on, and I am sure there are members here who are older than me who could tell enviornmental night mare stories that would make my stories sound like fairy tails of "Mr. Clean" (thats a joke for any one who missed it. Mr. Clean is also a toxic cleaning agent as is 99% of the rest)
[signature]
Reply
#5
We all need to watch for these big corp. and careless peaple that dump into our ground and water. Those where two posts that I got from another site and Quoted on this subject. Your right that when we where young, we dumped oil down the sewer drains and oiled the roads ever year.How little we knew at the time. Lets hope its not to late for our grandkids. In our state if you had an oil drum leaking like the one you spoke of the state would be down in a flash. Maybe take pictures and send it off to the state and newspapers. Then see how fast they react.
[signature]
Reply
#6
You'er right Guest, if we do beat up our industry bad enough they will leave and as long as we ALL take care in what we put into the sound, we'll have a better future. I think the main crust of the issue was clinton to put in they'er own treatment plant that the state asked them to do along time ago. If that had happened then this topic wouldn't even excist. Thanks for your input and come back soon.
[signature]
Reply
#7
Jim I thank you for your input and believe that that this board only seeks the facts so everyone can have a clear understanding of what goes on envolving our fisheries. We are not out to bash anyone unless they are negligent in hurting all our resources. My father, until he retired was a chemist for a small factory in Ivoryton and had to deal with some of the issues you do today. The media has grabbed on to this as they always do and some times are bias. [crazy] Thats why we like to hear from both sides so all can make a judgement. Again I wish the town had put in a treatment plant so this and any waste water would be treated. Keep up the good work. No one wants more jobs to leave CT.
[signature]
Reply
#8
Thanks for the update Jim, and I'm glad that this problem has a successful solution. It's a shame they didn't report that end of the story in the paper.
[signature]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)