Like we can handle nuke waste safely

uscitizen

Villified User
Toxic coal ash piling up in ponds in 32 states


Jan 9, 5:51 PM (ET)

By DINA CAPPIELLO



WASHINGTON (AP) - Millions of tons of toxic coal ash is piling up in power plant ponds in 32 states, a practice the government has long recognized as a risk to human health and the environment but has done nothing about.

An Associated Press analysis of the most recent Energy Department data found that 156 coal-fired power plants store ash in surface ponds similar to one that ruptured last month in Tennessee. On Friday, a pond at a northeastern Alabama power plant spilled a different material.

Records indicate that states storing the most coal ash in ponds are Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama.

The man-made lagoons hold a mixture of the noncombustible ingredients of coal and the ash trapped by equipment designed to reduce air pollution from the power plants.

Over the years, the volume of waste has grown as demand for electricity increased and the federal government clamped down on emissions from power plants.

The AP's analysis found that in 2005, the most recent year data is available, 721 power plants generating at least 100 megawatts of electricity produced 95.8 million tons of coal ash. About 20 percent - or nearly 20 million tons - ended up in surface ponds. The remainder ends up in landfills, or is sold for use in concrete, among other uses.

The Environmental Protection Agency eight years ago said it wanted to set a national standard for ponds or landfills used to dispose of wastes produced from burning coal.

The agency has yet to act.

As a result, coal ash ponds are subject to less regulation than landfills accepting household trash, even though the industry's own estimates show that ash ponds contain tens of thousands of pounds of toxic heavy metals. The EPA estimates that about 300 ponds for coal ash exist nationwide.

Without federal guidelines, regulations of the ash ponds vary by state. Most lack liners and have no monitors to ensure that ash and its contents don't seep into underground aquifers.

"There has been zero done by the EPA," said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W. Va., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Rahall pushed through legislation in 1980 directing the EPA to study how wastes generated at the nation's coal-fired power plants should be treated under federal law.

In both 1988 and 1993, the EPA decided that coal ash should not be regulated as a hazardous waste. The agency has also failed to take other steps to control how the waste is stored.

"Coal ash impoundments like the one in Tennessee have to be subject to federal regulations to ensure a basic level of safety for communities," Rahall said.

The Tennessee spill was at a Tennessee Valley Authority plant covered 300 acres in a slurry of coal ash and water, destroying homes and tainting waterways and soil with high levels of arsenic.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090109/D95JTBUO0.html
 
You do have a good point. Obviously we can't understate the importance of generation of electricity. That is more than a private industry it is a public concern.

The electric companies, as public companies have to balance the publics demands for electricity versus their obligation to being a good neighbor vs maximizing profits.

That is where the government comes in. Business has no motivation to be a good neighbor unless by not being one it impacts the bottom line. The obligation of any business is to maximize profits.

Industry does not have a right to pollute the air I breath, the water I drink or the land that I live on. Can you imagine how quickly you would be carted off to jail if you took the contents of your septic tank and dumped it on the front lawn of Duke power?

In cases such as this the Government not only has the right but an obligation to ensure that the publics safety is met.

But what bothers me here is that some reporter only has to make a claim and it's taken at face value even though the reporter may not know shit about the subject.

Case in point. How do you know the coal ash is toxic? By what standard are you calling it toxic? How do you know that it may be some other issue about the coal ash that may be of concern and not toxicity?

On an issue like this the last thing I'm going to do is take the word of some poorly informed, and probably scientifically illiterate journalist, word at face value.

The other extreme of this issue if probably worse. Excessive regulation could make it unprofitable to generate electricity and that would pose an even greater public health threat than the problem with coal ash would.
 
Just poking at Epi. He called me an idiot for saying pretty much the same thing.

He gave me negative reps for it too.
Ohh well, his problem.
 
I call you an idiot because you say dumb shit like "WE CAN HAVE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, BUT WILL WE?!"
 
I call you an idiot because you say dumb shit like "WE CAN HAVE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, BUT WILL WE?!"

And what is wrong with that statement?
What is possible does not always happen for many reasons. Uusally human based.

Please elaborate on what is idiotic with my statement in context of this thread.
 
maybe nuclear sludge is easier to contain than a bunch of tiny particles. Nuclear is more and more seeming to be exactly the way to go on this.
 
maybe nuclear sludge is easier to contain than a bunch of tiny particles. Nuclear is more and more seeming to be exactly the way to go on this.

Well the waste generated by the nuclear industry is way smaller in volume but is also far more hazardous. One catastrophic incidence, such as Chernobyl, can have a global impact.

The technologies to manage the hazards nuclear energy presents exist today. What doesn't exist is the credibility the industry needs to assure the public that they would affectively implement the required administrative and engineering controls needed to assure public safety. Until the nuclear industry can meet that threshold, it's not a valid solution.
 
Well the waste generated by the nuclear industry is way smaller in volume but is also far more hazardous. One catastrophic incidence, such as Chernobyl, can have a global impact.

The technologies to manage the hazards nuclear energy presents exist today. What doesn't exist is the credibility the industry needs to assure the public that they would affectively implement the required administrative and engineering controls needed to assure public safety. Until the nuclear industry can meet that threshold, it's not a valid solution.

Why I like my idea of the Navy supervising the construction of and operating nuke power plants. Their record and training are excellent.

But I do theink the storage of nuke waste issue be resolved before construction begins.
 
Why I like my idea of the Navy supervising the construction of and operating nuke power plants. Their record and training are excellent.

But I do theink the storage of nuke waste issue be resolved before construction begins.

That issue has been resolved. High temperature vitrification followed by encapsulation followed by deep well injection is a proven method for managing both high level and low level nuclear waste.
 
That issue has been resolved. High temperature vitrification followed by encapsulation followed by deep well injection is a proven method for managing both high level and low level nuclear waste.

And where is this deep well located?
How much have we stored in this manner?
How much do we still have around in various places not stored in this manner?
 
And where is this deep well located?
How much have we stored in this manner?
How much do we still have around in various places not stored in this manner?

Good questions of which I can only answer one. Yuka mountain is one deep well injection site. As for the how much question, I have no idea. Again, you're back to the issue of administrative and engineering control vs BADT.
 
Good questions of which I can only answer one. Yuka mountain is one deep well injection site. As for the how much question, I have no idea. Again, you're back to the issue of administrative and engineering control vs BADT.

Yucca mountain has not yet been used I think, And the fighting about it as a waste storage site continues.
 
Yucca mountain has not yet been used I think, And the fighting about it as a waste storage site continues.
The big problem with deep well injection is the transportation of HLW to the deep well site. Most Stats are hostile towards having the waste transported through there States.
 
Back
Top