What to do with New England's snow?

[Guest]

I keep hearing on the news that they don't know where to put all of Boston's snow. They showed on the news that they're putting the snow in "snow parks" and stacking it up 7 stories high. I hope I'm not asking a stupid question, but what's the reason that in an ocean-side city like Boston, they can't put it in the Boston Harbor? Isn't all going to end up in the ocean anyways? I would think that 7 stories of snow in a park is going to end up as a muddy mess. Too bad they can't ship it here to California.

I mean, WTF?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150214161726-04-snow-0214-boston-super-169.jpg

[+ FreshFluff]

One issue may be the environmental impact. Once snow has been trampled on for some time, it's got a lot of debris in it. Plus there's the salt that cities use on snow that falls on roads and sidewalks.

[tanman4u]

But as Unicorn pointed out, isn't it going to end up in the ocean anyway as soon as it starts melting?

 

One issue may be the environmental impact. Once snow has been trampled on for some time, it's got a lot of debris in it. Plus there's the salt that cities use on snow that falls on roads and sidewalks.

[+ azdr0710]

Boston Strong

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Water

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqKHqWaTv9g

 

good thought, Unicorn, never thought of that....maybe it's too far to truck the snow to the harbor area except for the snow right near it??

[bigvalboy]

One issue may be the environmental impact. Once snow has been trampled on for some time, it's got a lot of debris in it. Plus there's the salt that cities use on snow that falls on roads and sidewalks.

 

FF is correct, there are environmental issues.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/09/mayor-walsh-city-may-begin-dumping-snow-boston-harbor/KIW2nhQlS0yPfMuViLVI4K/story.html

[bigvalboy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqKHqWaTv9g

 

Thanks for the video azdr. It was fun to hear it again.....

[Steven_Draker]

I keep hearing on the news that they don't know where to put all of Boston's snow. They showed on the news that they're putting the snow in "snow parks" and stacking it up 7 stories high. I hope I'm not asking a stupid question, but what's the reason that in an ocean-side city like Boston, they can't put it in the Boston Harbor? Isn't all going to end up in the ocean anyways? I would think that 7 stories of snow in a park is going to end up as a muddy mess. Too bad they can't ship it here to California. I mean, WTF?

 

Question: Just wondering since we live so close to the ocean, why can’t we dump truckloads of snow into the Atlantic. I would think there is a location that would be accessible for trucks to dump a load of snow into the ocean. Seems like a practical answer to get rid of all the snow that is piled up everywhere especially in the city of Boston. Just a thought. - Diane, Plymouth

 

And with another set of storms heading this way, where to put it all is a huge question.

 

But there’s one very important reason why the snow can’t be dumped in the ocean….it’s against the law. The Clean Water Act prohibits dumping snow in the ocean, and The Wetlands Protection Act says “no” to dumping it in rivers and lakes. Why? Because those truckloads of snow would contain contaminants like road treating chemicals, salt and even oil and gas from cars. Not to mention garbage picked up off the road. All stuff that doesn’t belong in our waterways.

 

However, according to the Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection, a city or town can ask that agency for a waiver in an emergency, but only if they can show that the snow they want to dump isn’t contaminated. So far during this harsh winter, no city or town has asked.

 

source: The Clean Water Act

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations

[AdamSmith]

Also:

 

City of Boston ✔ @NotifyBoston Follow

Snow melters are melting 400 tons of snow per hour at the city’s snow farms to make room for new truckloads #BOSnow

4:01 PM - 9 Feb 2015

 

...Back in November, parts of western New York were buried under 6 feet of lake-effect snow. In Orchard Park, more than 220,000 tons of snow had to be removed from Ralph Wilson Stadium, home of the NFL's Buffalo Bills.

To help with the removal, the Bills contacted Chuck Lantzman, president and CEO of Pittsburgh-based Snow and Ice Management Company. The company owns two "Snow Dragon" snow melters and brought one to the snowbound region to help dispose of the snow from the Bills stadium.

At the core of the machine is a 9 million BTU per hour burner which keeps 1,200 gallons of water heated between 70 and 90 F. In Orchard Park, about 60 tons of snow was melted per hour just from the Snow Dragon alone, Lantzman said.

"It's a newer technology, it helps [with] going green, because everything's filtered and so you're not dumping pollution," said Lantzman, whose company provides commercial snow removal across seven states in the Northeast.

The melters have multiple filters to catch oils and debris that gather in the snow. The pollution-free water from the melted snow is then typically dumped into a catch basin, Lantzman said.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snow-removal-boston-northeast/42028195

[Guest]

One issue may be the environmental impact. Once snow has been trampled on for some time, it's got a lot of debris in it. Plus there's the salt that cities use on snow that falls on roads and sidewalks.

 

I'm afraid I still don't get it. Aren't oceans basically a lot of water and salt? With some debris and stuff, of course? Whatever debris is in there, I would think it will just end up in the storm drains when the snow melts, and that eventually ends up in the oceans in any case. Snow is just cold rain, it would seem, and rain carries debris and surface oils, etc., with it. We don't treat rain as if it's toxic waste, so what makes snow different?

[AdamSmith]

Think it's a question at least partly of quantity and locality. Boston's snow with all its lovely road salt and scraped-up street goop (road scraping seems to bring up rather more road surface contaminants than rainwater runoff) wouldn't be dumped in the middle of the Atlantic, but in Boston Harbor (which over the last quarter-century has been cleaned up substantially, not without considerable cost and effort), there to settle. Or similarly in the coastal shallows elsewhere.

[bigvalboy]

cleaned up substantially[/url], not without considerable cost and effort), there to settle. Or similarly in the coastal shallows elsewhere.

 

This...and while it is true some of the snow would melt and run eventually into the storm drains and then into the harbor, a large percentage of the snow would evaporate, and not necessarily melt and create runoff.

 

http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/02/what-should-boston-do-with-all-that-snow/385388/

[RadioRob]

The other thing to remember is this is not the same kind of "salt" that is found in the water. Just like you would not take a glass of ocean salt water in the morning with breakfast.

 

Then you throw in the fact that if you dump it RIGHT at the entrance to the harbor, you're going to have a HUGE concentration of chemicals all in one small area. The idea of using the melters is a good one... melt the snow and filter out the bad stuff as much as you can.

 

In terms of "it's just going to end up there anyway"... if you think about it, it does not. By default as it's melting throughout the city, a good deal of it ends up going through the sewage system and being treated in that system before being returned to the water source.

 

It's a much larger environmental impact for us to gather it up across an area as big as Boston and it's immediate surrounding areas and just dump it in the harbor.

[+ deej]

In terms of "it's just going to end up there anyway"... if you think about it, it does not. By default as it's melting throughout the city, a good deal of it ends up going through the sewage system and being treated in that system before being returned to the water source.

 

It's a much larger environmental impact for us to gather it up across an area as big as Boston and it's immediate surrounding areas and just dump it in the harbor.

 

The treatment is an important issue. I know that in Chicago they have water reclamation plants where snow is trucked in and melted, then fed into the water treatment system and into the public water supply.

 

A seven-story mound of snow may actually still be there next winter, though, so I'd imagine a herd of engineers is studying how to address it. It's something the city hasn't had to contend with before.

[RadioRob]

I assume the 7 story mound of snow is meant as a stop-gap storage location. Once they can start getting the melters in place, I assume they'll bring them in there to help clear them out so we don't have to wait a full year for it to do it naturally.

 

But again, that's me just thinking aloud on the spot. I am NOT on the city council, or affiliated in any way with the government and folks actually making decisions.

[+ FreshFluff]

Had no idea that Boston Harbour was fresh water!

 

 

From what i understand, altering the specific level of salt in the water can harm fish, though the amount of salt in the snow should be small compared to the amount in the water.

 

Apparently, reducing the level of salt in the harbor (due to the lower concentration of salt in the snow) i is the biggest concern for Boston.

http://www.whdh.com/story/28063848/marblehead-gets-permission-to-dump-snow-in-harbor

[+ deej]

Portland, Maine, has apparently built a snow mountain so high it's violating FAA rules and interfering with airplanes.

 

Like I said, a herd of engineers will likely be working on this.

[gallahadesquire]

When I was a kid, in greater Chicagoland, there was a three-story pile of snow in the forest across from my house.

It was well-shaded. It was the remainder of the 1967 Blizzard.

 

I specifically remember that, by mid-july, it had been reduced to a dirt-covered pile about five feet high.

I assume the snow farms have better sun exposure, but the comment that they might be there next winter

is cute - and possibly true?

[+ dutchmuch]

Now that the Keystone XL pipeline has been vetoed, how about building one from East Coast to West Coast. Instead of carrying oil, carry water to us parched dry Southern Cali!

[adriano46]

Now that the Keystone XL pipeline has been vetoed, how about building one from East Coast to West Coast. Instead of carrying oil, carry water to us parched dry Southern Cali!

 

+1

[+ deej]

Now that the Keystone XL pipeline has been vetoed, how about building one from East Coast to West Coast. Instead of carrying oil, carry water to us parched dry Southern Cali!

 

I actually read an analysis of what this would take today.

 

I'm paraphrasing here, but it would cost something like a trillion dollars and would solve .002% of the California drought.

 

The ratio was really that far out of whack.

 

Um, no.