Manure, Nuclear Waste, Sewage, And Coal Ash: Scary Toxic Lagoons (PHOTOS)

Hold your nose and run for cover!

Many people think that waste from mining, nuclear power, and even sewage is out of sight, out of mind. Not so much. Much of this waste is stored in open-air lagoons with thin plastic liners, or none at all. Their walls are prone to bursting in a heavy rain. And what they contain poses a threat to our ecosystems, homes, and our health.

If you can stand to take a look at these Halloween horrors of a totally different kind, here are the lagoons that we wish didn't exist.

1 of 7

Coal Ash

1 of 8

First Slide

Previous Slide

@

In 2008 when a retaining wall at the Kingston coal plant in Tennessee failed, it spilled an estimated 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic waste, including lead and thallium, into the surrounding area and water. The flow of sludge also destroyed three nearby homes. In the past ten years there have been other coal ash spills in Georgia and Pennsylvania. In case you’re thinking “that could never happen near me,” we have some bad news. There are 1,300 coal waste storage sites across the US. In 2008 the EPA reported that 67 coal-ash sites were found to be contaminating drinking water across 23 states. Out of all the 155 sites the EPA reviewed, all but 13 had no liner or an inadequate liner. The liner is what keeps toxic metals from leaching into the water supply. About a third of the offending sites were near human populations, and two-thirds were near key waterways. What’s worse, most of the sites are not monitored at all. That’s because coal ash is not regulated by the federal government as hazardous waste.

Tiger Overload

gadgets/slideshows/298353/slide_298353_2481215_small.jpg

May Tornadoes 2013

A Festive Steak Dinner

May 2013 Central U.S. Tornadoes (GRAPHIC IMAGES)

10 Worst States For Animal Abuse Laws

Top U.S. Renewable Energy Sources - 2011 (MOST RECENT DATA)

In 2008 when a retaining wall at the Kingston coal plant in Tennessee failed, it spilled an estimated 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic waste, including lead and thallium, into the surrounding area and water. The flow of sludge also destroyed three nearby homes. In the past ten years there have been other coal ash spills in Georgia and Pennsylvania.

In case you’re thinking “that could never happen near me,” we have some bad news. There are 1,300 coal waste storage sites across the US. In 2008 the EPA reported that 67 coal-ash sites were found to be contaminating drinking water across 23 states. Out of all the 155 sites the EPA reviewed, all but 13 had no liner or an inadequate liner. The liner is what keeps toxic metals from leaching into the water supply. About a third of the offending sites were near human populations, and two-thirds were near key waterways.

What’s worse, most of the sites are not monitored at all. That’s because coal ash is not regulated by the federal government as hazardous waste.

comments(53)

Total comments: 53 | Post a Comment

1 of 8

Worst Lagoons

Rank #2  |  Average: 4

NIMBY... Why Is This Legal?

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10

Worst Waste Lagoons

loading...

Worst Waste Lagoons

UserName

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Top User Slides

← Prev|Next →

 | Become a fan

Picked These as the Top 5 Slides in the Slideshow

loading...

Users who voted on this slide

← Prev|Next →

loading...

Comments

[New Ideas]

04:11 PM on 10/29/2010

For me, the best solution for the disposal of animal and human manure is simple- Bamboo.

An American environmental group called Sustainable Strategies has met with pig farmers, federal agencies and state officials in North Carolina to discuss plant-based solutions for the problem of water contamination from the state’s huge pig farms. Sustainable Strategies was asked to provide a solution, and that solution was a bamboo forest.

This group envisage a system where treated effluent is drained into a forest of bamboo that will take up the manure and breathe out the water to the point where neither the manure nor the water leaks outside the forest. A zero discharge system. Not only is a huge amount of wastewater pumped quickly into the air where it is needed to make rain, but in the very act of getting rid of pollution, the forest is creating a great deal of economic value.

A mature 30-foot clump of bamboo could take up ten gallons of sewage sludge per day. With bamboo being used in building construction, furniture, laminated flooring and decorative fencing, sewage waste polluting our waterways could be easily turned into many kinds of marketable products. Also, bamboo leaves are great for animal fodder. Considering that there are species of bamboo that grow a foot a day, this could be a great solution to this problem.

[Charles Elk]

02:37 AM on 10/29/2010

Poop kills? I don't know if can I live with myself.

[Bryan Elliott]

09:47 PM on 10/28/2010

(3) is inaccurate. The pools only hold waste for a set time before the fuel is casked. They are designed to hold the expected fuel throughput of the plant - something like 22 T/GWy - for the period of decay time deemed safe for cask transfer - about 4 years. After those four years, the pools don't accumulate more waste; the oldest fuel bundle is transferred to dry cask storage (essentially, a large, leak-proof shielded cylinder). These are safe to walk up to - though they'd rather you didn't - and are impact tested. They are safe for eventual transport to a permanent storage facility, or to stay where they are (after all, at 22 T/GWy, the 880 tonnes that are produced after 40 years aren't a lot to store on-site - you could keep it in a passively cooled cube 32ft to a side, shielding and all).

[Michael Mann]

10:10 PM on 10/27/2010

It is true if these rods get too crowded and a moderator is introduced they could go critical, of course to get too crowded someone would have to physically move them together, remove the boron "poison" they are stored in, and purposely make the correct geometry, all while avoiding the armed guards. The fuel rods are safe, shielded, monitored and protected in the most secure industrial sites in the world. This post is totally misleading about "high level nuclear waste" how can I believe the rest of what you say when this is so wrong?

[Watt D Fuch]

11:09 PM on 10/27/2010

another reason we need to build hydrogen power plants.

[Michael Mann]

01:44 AM on 10/28/2010

Hydrogen is a storage medium, not a power plant, we can use nuclear plants to produce hydrogen.

[Alden Wicker]

09:53 AM on 10/28/2010

In response to concerns about nuclear waste being included in this piece:

It's absolutely true that spent fuel rods are not stored in open pits or lagoons. But I chose to include nuclear waste as an example of problems with storage of dangerous waste from industrial and energy industries.

The fact remains that there is no permanent solution yet to the storage of nuclear waste in the United States. It the respect that we have yet to come up with or implement a satisfactory way to store it for the long term, nuclear waste shares similarities with the other types of waste cited in the article.

For reference, see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5408-2005Mar27_2.html
http://politics.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2009/03/16/lessons-from-the-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-storage-debate.html?PageNr=2
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-a-place-for-nuclear-waste
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0201/Nuclear-waste-storage-in-limbo-as-Obama-axes-Yucca-Mountain-funds
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0216/

[PoloniumMan]

05:00 PM on 10/28/2010

The US government is storing trans uranic (TRU) waste from nuclear weapons production in the WIPP* site in New Mexico (up to 9000 shipments so far). This is a very old (geologically speaking) salt dome where the waste is stored very far underground. Once placed in a cavity, supports are removed and the salt begins to seal the storage area permanently. This demonstrates that there is at least one permanent solution. The correct statement with respect to spent nuclear fuel disposition is that there is no US government policy. There are multiple technical solutions available.

* US DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) http://www.wipp.energy.gov/

[Michael Mann]

05:47 PM on 10/28/2010

It's true there is no "permanent solution" yet in the US, but it is a problem of policy not a technical problem, there are several technically sound solutions, but without the political will to choose one and use it....
I believe it would be wrong to use non-retrievable storage without recycling of the usable isotopes.

[Caroline Webb]

09:45 PM on 10/27/2010

It is very good to spend a few minutes giving thought to realities of waste streams from food and electricity generation. I would prefer it if the tone was more inclusive and less blaming, however. Also if it were less fear-mongering. By 'inclusive' I mean, include yourself, include all of us and not just point fingers at producers. This is a collective situation but we go no further along the path of discernment and education when a journalist sets out to say BOO! Get Scared! Especially if there is outright rubbish being written as the journalist has done with nuclear fuel rods. He/She has broken a rule of journalism which is to be accurate, as near as damn it. It is 'balderdash' to talk of spent fuel rods sitting in open ponds with thin or no liners, as pointed out by Polonium Man and others. Huff Post, choose someone more rigorous and professional to do a piece like this - Perleeeze!

[Uncle Bill]

12:32 PM on 10/28/2010

My ex- brother-in-law worked in nuclear propulsion in USN submarines and had complete confidence in the Navy's nuclear program, but felt that no private company should be entrusted with nuclear powerplants as the incentives to cut corners were too great when weighed against the risks. I live in Nebraska not far from a nuclear powerplant run by a publicly owned utility and it has a good safety record, in part because they have no profit motive to cut corners. IF that became the model for US nuclear power I would support it wholeheartedly. The biggest problem with nuclear waste disposal is NIMBY, not technical problems.

[Mark Montgomery]

03:22 PM on 10/27/2010

I've read about farmer's going out to clear clogged hog pits without taking proper precautions and uh well not coming back. All I have to say is good day to you sir.

[rougebaisers]

02:45 PM on 10/27/2010

America the beautiful. Let's frac drill the grand canyon. I hear there's gas in central park. Would they mind a frac drill on the White House lawn?

[Mark Montgomery]

03:24 PM on 10/27/2010

We could use the gravel on Pikes Peak fro concrete. Why not haul the mountain down one truck load at a time.

[gypsysailor]

02:13 PM on 10/27/2010

They didn't mention chicken farms down here in the south. Get you a nice hot, humid day where you haven't seen any rain in 2 weeks and do a drive by sometime. Talk about a gangland masacre. Even the flies leave the area.

[PoloniumMan]

02:01 PM on 10/27/2010

Alden,

I just flipped through the photos that go with your story. I noticed that for nuclear power waste you just have the radiation trefoil instead of pictures actual spent fuel storage. Why is that? If you look at my previous post, there's plenty of photos on the web for both spent fuel storage pools (including some with the cool blue light of the Cerenkov-radiation) and dry cask storage. Are you worried that if readers see the small volume of waste from decades of nuclear generated electricity, they may form a more positive view of nuclear power?

[lightningbolt]

04:32 PM on 10/27/2010

With nuclear waste, it's not the size that matters. A small nuclear fuel rod can be radioactive for a very long time, and it doesn't take much radiation to cause cancer and genetic defects.

[PoloniumMan]

08:22 PM on 10/27/2010

Very few people spend time next to a spent fuel rod. Those that do, are there because of their job and receive very little dose due to the concrete and steel shielding or meters of borated water that surrounds that fuel rod. Nuclear power waste doesn't go up a smoke stack to become air pollution; it stays in the fuel assembly and is easily monitored.

...A banana can be radioactive for billions of years (if there could be a billion-year-old banana).

[getsgarth]

01:57 PM on 10/27/2010

Sadly, picture 1 shows how there is nothing as clean coal.

[Watt D Fuch]

11:14 PM on 10/27/2010

oxymoron indeed....I like biodiesel sounds so green.

[PoloniumMan]

01:37 PM on 10/27/2010

"Many people think that waste from mining, nuclear power, and even sewage is out of sight, out of mind. Not so much. Much of this waste is stored in open-air lagoons with thin plastic liners, or none at all. "

Interesting that the author groups nuclear waste in with mining and sewage. Spent nuclear fuel is contained on-site at the power plant in indoor concrete "pools" then moved into dry cask storage**; nothing like the coal ash reservoirs mentioned in the article. I guess it's just more of the negative media bias that's shaping societal views of nuclear power.

** http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/pools.html or http://www.connyankee.com/html/fuel_storage.html

They're dry, which means they don't leak.

[Uncle Bill]

01:24 PM on 10/27/2010

Years ago family farms throughout the midwest produced both grains and livestock. Farmers finished cattle that were bred by ranchers, and raised sheep and hogs. The grains they produced were fed to livestock with the excess sold as a cash crop. The livestock waste was used as organic fertilizer for the land that produced the feed for the livestock. No need for overuse of antibiotics in the livestock, no hormones, no waste lagoons, and a higher quality, healthier product. But the lack of health regulation by the government allows for corporate model farming that gives you a product that is generally bad for your health, bad for the environment, and often dangerous because of bacterial contamination. The few cents saved by this "cheaper" model of food production can cost you your life if you are one of the unlucky ones, or destroy your enjoyment of your home if you live near one of these lagoons. Not a wise choice overall, but there are millions of dollars spent buying our political leaders and hamstringing our regulators to allow it to continue.

[jdmn17]

08:34 PM on 10/27/2010

All good points and each one of your concerns about government stepping back will be magnified if the Tea Party gets its way. We cannot begin to fathom what these money grubbing factory farms might do when inadequate management today yields toxic time bombs. Paint the rivers brown, smelly and unusable if the factory farms can go back to directly dumping their Crap - literally - into the rivers again

[jsarets]

09:09 PM on 10/27/2010

Good point in general, but it was actually government intervention in commodity crop agriculture that caused the decoupling of grain farms from livestock farms.

When the Farm Bill switched from production quotas to direct subsidies in the early 70s, farmers could receive federal subsidies for selling corn and soy on the open market but not for producing corn and soy for livestock feed on site. As a result, livestock farmers could buy corn on the open market much cheaper than they could produce it themselves.

So the livestock moved off the arable land and the corn farmers started using ammonia fertilizers produced from natural gas. Without the federal corn subsidies, the CAFO model would not be as economically compelling as it is.

Now we need government to address the problems caused by their past interventions...

Or we can just get rid of the commodity crop subsidies and fix quite a few nutritional, environmental, and economic problems in one simple feat of common sense.

[Uncle Bill]

10:20 PM on 10/27/2010

Anhydrous ammonia use predates the early 70's and soy production was miniscule in the US at the time. The shift is as much due to the influx of corporate feedlots as anything else.
But keep peddling "the government is responsible for all evils" story, people with no memory or knowledge of farming will probably buy it.

[JackiChan]

01:19 PM on 10/27/2010

What about landmines?

[2LaneIA]

12:53 PM on 10/27/2010

Francis Thicke, quoted in Mike Ragogna's piece in Green right now: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ragogna/emall-eyes-on-iowaem-an-i_b_774713.html)
"Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have proliferated across Iowa in the last couple decades. That has caused a lot of divisiveness in rural communities as farmers and rural residents who have lived in the country all their lives -- or for generations -- have found their lives turned upside-down by the odors and toxic fumes from CAFOs, which negatively affect their quality of life, health and property values.

What is not well understood is that the smell coming from a CAFO is not the smell of manure. Manure in the liquid manure pit of a CAFO undergoes anaerobic putrefaction, in which hundreds of volatile organic compounds are produced right in the manure slurry. One of the more familiar compounds, hydrogen sulfide, is so toxic that if the ventilation system of the CAFO fails, the hogs or CAFO workers can die in a matter of minutes. Studies show that these toxic compounds can harm the health of neighbors. That is why CAFOs need adequate regulation to protect the quality of life, health and property values of their neighbors."

He has more about what we can do to change this at http://www.thickeforagriculture.com/

2laneIA

[Lex10]

12:38 PM on 10/27/2010

Seems like an industrious country like the USA could figure out a way to get the methane outta the poop and the solids into our gardens.