The bombshell allegations may violate the EPA's Clean Water Act.

SpaceX’s Starship launches at the company’s Starbase facility near Boca Chica, Texas, have allegedly been contaminating local bodies of water with mercury for years. The news arrives in an exclusive CNBCreport on August 12, which cites internal documents and communications between local Texas regulators and the Environmental Protection Agency.

SpaceX’s fourth Starship test launch in June was its most successful so far—but the world’s largest and most powerful rocket ever built continues to wreak havoc on nearby Texas communities, wildlife, and ecosystems. But after repeated admonishments, reviews, and ignored requests, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) have had enough.

  • sp3ctr4l
    2•3 months ago

    Yes, thats what SpaceX is saying.

    As of right now, the original blurb I quoted from the CNBC article has been modified to this:

    SpaceX said in its response on X that there were “no detectable levels of mercury” found in its samples. But SpaceX wrote in its July permit application — under the header Specific Testing Requirements - Table 2 for Outfall: 001 — that its mercury concentration at one outfall location was 113 micrograms per liter. Water quality criteria in the state calls for levels no higher than 2.1 micrograms per liter for acute aquatic toxicity and much lower levels for human health

    CNBC is currently sticking with their report. This is not factually inaccurate information, it is a clarification, a specification.

    Perhaps SpaceX could actually provide evidence that they submitted a version with the typo fixed, that TCEQ is ‘currently updating the application’, or that other lab tests corroborate that the 0.113 number?

    Either way, doesn’t change the number of complaints the TCEQ received, that SpaceX was releasing deluge water for roughly a year without permission to do so, that they were told to stop doing that and then did it again literally the next day.

    • @NotMyOldRedditName
      3•3 months ago

      They also wrote <0.113 on table 16 at the same outfall.

      Table 2 and 16 also have 139 and 0.139 for sample 2, reversed so T2: (113/0.139) T16: (<0.113/139)

      No matter how you look at it, that’s extremely shoddy reporting by CNBC. Whoever wrote that report also needs to have a long chat with their supervisor.

      Also SpaceX claims they had permission to do it based on existing rules they are under, AND TCEQ was there to help with the first test even. The EPA had factually incorrect information when they requested they stop, and then gave the A-OKAY once SpaceX corrected their misunderstandings.

      edit: Selenium also goes from 2.86 to 28.6 on sample 1