You're viewing a single thread.
75% of American drinking water needs treatment to reduce particulate and parasites, and the treatment additive used to render the water safe is produced at a single chemical plant located in an area of severe flood risk -- which means that a flood could take it offline for a day or two, or damage it for weeks.
(Efforts to build a second site recently fell through due to ever-changing regulations. Of course they're stockpiling it in some mountain bunker, I'm sure)
The next Katrina could give us a brain-worms infestation via tap-water.
Are you saying the chemical plant provides the treatment or that one plant is somehow responsible for polluting 75% of American drinking water?
Nah, lemme reword that. Thanks!
I think the former, based on my limited knowledge of the water treatment industry. There aren't many manufacturers of low margin commodity chemicals, most people are in specialty chemicals with higher margins.
I don't know the details about alum production (assuming that is what you are referring to), but there are many alternative coagulants available now. Sure the supply logistics would be incredibly challenging and many people would have to boil their water or use point-of-use filters, but this take is pretty doomer in my opinion. Most plants use alum because it's cheap and easy, not because it's their only option.
I work at a plant that uses one of those alternative flocculants (due to our source water chemistry). Our logistics are incredibly shaky at the best of times, due to the extremely limited number of producers.