EPA Causes Massive Hazardous Spill in West

[Shooby]

Earlier this month, employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, acting in their official capacities, caused one of the largest hazardous waste spills in recent history.

“For almost a week, a torrent of toxic sludge — the color of hot mustard and rife with poisonous metals — has been flowing through Colorado, Utah and New Mexico. On Monday, the governor of Colorado declared a belated state of emergency, as officials announced that the popular Animas River would remain closed until at least Aug. 17,” NBC reports.

The “transparent” Obama administration, however, is hiding the actual details of how the agency ostensibly responsible for keeping our waterways clean created this environmental disaster
.
www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/epa-causes-massive-hazardous-spill-in-west/

[Deleted]

I was hoping to start a thread on this subject but you beat me to it.    As a citizen of the United States I was hoping to be able to fine the EPA for their indiscretion.  The fine would have to be sized large enough to cause enough hurt that the management of the EPA would not soon forget it.  Similar to a fine that would be leveled against a private or public company for doing the same thing.  The fine collected would be used for oversight of the EPA to prevent future negligence.  It would be called the "Diogenes-23 program to prevent toxic pollution".

[Value Buy]

We love vacationing in the Durango area.
Sorry this happened, but there are so many abandoned mining operations out west, it was bound to happen.
Even along the river in Durango you still see pile of waste rock debris where virtually nothing grows from the old refining days.
The Animas valley and river is a beautiful area, and many ranchers and farmers depend on the river for water source 

[happyhoix]

I saw the head of the EPA at a news event, and she admitted no one was more upset that this happened than the EPA.

They were trying to clean up some 1920's gold mine that had been abandoned long ago, and miscalculated how much water was present in it.

I guess they could have left it alone, and never cleaned it up at all, just let run off overflow into the river - there's another mine out there that's been dumping toxic water for decades.

Sure it would continue to poison the river, but hey, we'd save the money for a clean up and avoid the risk that something like this would happen, so that's worth it, huh?

In fact, let's shut down the EPA and stop regulating these kinds of things completely, so we can save money and be like China - worst air pollution on the planet, and now one of their hazardous material warehouses exploded and took out half a city. Sounds good!

[Value Buy]

happyhoix, even you have to see the irony of the EPA creating a toxic spill.
Manufacturers are always unfeeling killers of the people with their toxic waste and spills.
I am sure Exxon did not want the spill in Alaska
I am sure BP did not deliberately pollute the Gulf of Mexico.
But they were held monetarily responsible.
Now the EPA has either killed every fish for hundreds of miles, or they are now filled with toxic chemicals passing on to future generations, and ranchers and farmers have polluted water fed to their cattle, horses, and crops, and many cities along the various cities who ironically are watched for pollution releases into the same river, and get fined for same, will have to jump through hoops making sure they are not poisoning their citizens with the drinking water.

[Value Buy]

And I wonder exactly what went into the air in China yesterday with those massive explosions.
Anyone wonder where those toxic bombs were headed anyway?
Maybe a thousand mile trip to the bottom of the Pacific ocean on a tramp steamer?
I am sure China uses EPA type regulations in proper disposal procedures

That first explosion looked like a mini atomic bomb.........
Nice mushroom cloud.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 13, 2015 7:32:41 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

And I wonder exactly what went into the air in China yesterday with those massive explosions.
Anyone wonder where those toxic bombs were headed anyway?
Maybe a thousand mile trip to the bottom of the Pacific ocean on a tramp steamer?
I am sure China uses EPA type regulations in proper disposal procedures

That first explosion looked like a mini atomic bomb.........
Nice mushroom cloud.

Did you see the very short building security video of the guy standing by the glass doors and walls as they blew in on him? Yikes!

[Value Buy]

Aug 13, 2015 7:55:26 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 13, 2015 7:32:41 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

And I wonder exactly what went into the air in China yesterday with those massive explosions.
Anyone wonder where those toxic bombs were headed anyway?
Maybe a thousand mile trip to the bottom of the Pacific ocean on a tramp steamer?
I am sure China uses EPA type regulations in proper disposal procedures

That first explosion looked like a mini atomic bomb.........
Nice mushroom cloud.

Did you see the very short building security video of the guy standing by the glass doors and walls as they blew in on him? Yikes!

Missed it. Did he live?
I imagine we will never know how many people died there. It had to be really large.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 13, 2015 8:00:39 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Aug 13, 2015 7:55:26 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Did you see the very short building security video of the guy standing by the glass doors and walls as they blew in on him? Yikes!

Missed it. Did he live?
I imagine we will never know how many people died there. It had to be really large.

I don't know if he lived. Maybe. But here is the very short video.

[Waffle]

I heard yesterday afternoon that the River in Durango was re-opened because the heavy metal levels were back to pre-event levels. But, if I lived in that area I'd be worried. There were some extremely high levels and according to some experts, some of those heavy metals just settled to the river bed and could easily be kicked up again.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2015 7:19:30 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I saw the head of the EPA at a news event, and she admitted no one was more upset that this happened than the EPA.

They were trying to clean up some 1920's gold mine that had been abandoned long ago, and miscalculated how much water was present in it.

I guess they could have left it alone, and never cleaned it up at all, just let run off overflow into the river - there's another mine out there that's been dumping toxic water for decades.

Sure it would continue to poison the river, but hey, we'd save the money for a clean up and avoid the risk that something like this would happen, so that's worth it, huh?

In fact, let's shut down the EPA and stop regulating these kinds of things completely, so we can save money and be like China - worst air pollution on the planet, and now one of their hazardous material warehouses exploded and took out half a city. Sounds good!

Only one word out of your whole rant seems to mean anything.  That word is "Miscalculated".  For some reason I'm thinking of the total cost to our economy in EPA regulations concerning carbon emissions in regards to the UNPROVEN global warming theory. If the EPA can't safely estimate the amount of water in a mine...

[The Captain]

Aug 14, 2015 13:01:02 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Aug 13, 2015 7:19:30 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I saw the head of the EPA at a news event, and she admitted no one was more upset that this happened than the EPA.

They were trying to clean up some 1920's gold mine that had been abandoned long ago, and miscalculated how much water was present in it.

I guess they could have left it alone, and never cleaned it up at all, just let run off overflow into the river - there's another mine out there that's been dumping toxic water for decades.

Sure it would continue to poison the river, but hey, we'd save the money for a clean up and avoid the risk that something like this would happen, so that's worth it, huh?

In fact, let's shut down the EPA and stop regulating these kinds of things completely, so we can save money and be like China - worst air pollution on the planet, and now one of their hazardous material warehouses exploded and took out half a city. Sounds good!

Only one word out of your whole rant seems to mean anything.  That word is "Miscalculated".  For some reason I'm thinking of the total cost to our economy in EPA regulations concerning carbon emissions in regards to the UNPROVEN global warming theory. If the EPA can't safely estimate the amount of water in a mine...

I'm not absolving them of responsibility but remember the scenario

1.  You have an abandoned mine
2.  There are most likely no records associated with the mine available
3.  You have know idea how deep the mine runs, how many side tunnels there are, etc.

Just like a pothole in the road filled with rain water.  It could be two inches deep and you're ok driving over it, or it could be a foot deep and you'd blow a tire and bend a rim if you drive over it.

Sometimes there truly are unknowns.

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2015 13:10:12 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 14, 2015 13:01:02 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Only one word out of your whole rant seems to mean anything.  That word is "Miscalculated".  For some reason I'm thinking of the total cost to our economy in EPA regulations concerning carbon emissions in regards to the UNPROVEN global warming theory. If the EPA can't safely estimate the amount of water in a mine...

I'm not absolving them of responsibility but remember the scenario

1.  You have an abandoned mine
2.  There are most likely no records associated with the mine available
3.  You have know idea how deep the mine runs, how many side tunnels there are, etc.

Just like a pothole in the road filled with rain water.  It could be two inches deep and you're ok driving over it, or it could be a foot deep and you'd blow a tire and bend a rim if you drive over it.

Sometimes there truly are unknowns.

That's why you should overestimate the amount of water by several factors. That is cheap by comparison when talking heavy metal contamination. The EPA is not talking about the riverbed contamination. Part of downplaying the problem ?  " I'm sorry"  just doesn't cut it.

[The Captain]

@jma23 - again not making excuses, but you do realize the EPA does not have a limitless budget?

There are far more superfund clean up sites out there than there are resources to clean them up.  Add to the problem the fact that many of the original polluters either are not in existence, or are tied up in litigation with respect to their share of the responsibility which is often shared with multiple entities.

The EPA simply does not have the resources to err of the side of caution by many multiples.  And, and I'd be willing to bet they would be totally skewered if the press got ahold of how much "waste" there was in their management of taxpayer resources.

I too would like to hear more about the long-term impact on the ecosystem. 

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2015 13:43:33 GMT -5 The Captain said:

@jma23 - again not making excuses, but you do realize the EPA does not have a limitless budget?

There are far more superfund clean up sites out there than there are resources to clean them up.  Add to the problem the fact that many of the original polluters either are not in existence, or are tied up in litigation with respect to their share of the responsibility which is often shared with multiple entities.

The EPA simply does not have the resources to err of the side of caution by many multiples.  And, and I'd be willing to bet they would be totally skewered if the press got ahold of how much "waste" there was in their management of taxpayer resources.

I too would like to hear more about the long-term impact on the ecosystem. 

Building a closable sluice gate or valve would not of added much to the cost.  How about digging a runoff hole/pond before hand ?  That wouldn't cost much either.  Especially when heavy metal contamination is possible.  The engineering had to be second rate.  Not acceptable for that type of pollutant.  Yes I'm unhappy it occurred, but not with you.

[The Captain]

Aug 14, 2015 14:05:14 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Aug 14, 2015 13:43:33 GMT -5 The Captain said:

@jma23 - again not making excuses, but you do realize the EPA does not have a limitless budget?

There are far more superfund clean up sites out there than there are resources to clean them up.  Add to the problem the fact that many of the original polluters either are not in existence, or are tied up in litigation with respect to their share of the responsibility which is often shared with multiple entities.

The EPA simply does not have the resources to err of the side of caution by many multiples.  And, and I'd be willing to bet they would be totally skewered if the press got ahold of how much "waste" there was in their management of taxpayer resources.

I too would like to hear more about the long-term impact on the ecosystem. 

Building a closable sluice gate or valve would not of added much to the cost.  How about digging a runoff hole/pond before hand ?  That wouldn't cost much either.  Especially when heavy metal contamination is possible.  The engineering had to be second rate.  Not acceptable for that type of pollutant.  Yes I'm unhappy it occurred, but not with you.

BTW - just noticed your tagline - cute! Morbid, but cute!

Sounds like you know more about engineering than I do (which is painfully easy BTW).  Wouldn't a runoff pond have to be sealed so the contaminated water doesn't seep into the ground/water-table anyway? Are there liners big enough and durable enough to be practical for that?

I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

I'll be the first to agree sometime our rules make us shoot ourselves in the foot.  Somehow I'm willing to bet the cost effective, stop-gap measure you described isn't considered durable enough to be a permitted solution.

Used to work for a major chemical company years ago so I picked up a little knowledge here and there.   Cost effective stop gap solutions usually didn't fit the safety specs.

[OldCoyote]

Aug 14, 2015 13:10:12 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 14, 2015 13:01:02 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Only one word out of your whole rant seems to mean anything.  That word is "Miscalculated".  For some reason I'm thinking of the total cost to our economy in EPA regulations concerning carbon emissions in regards to the UNPROVEN global warming theory. If the EPA can't safely estimate the amount of water in a mine...

I'm not absolving them of responsibility but remember the scenario

1.  You have an abandoned mine
2.  There are most likely no records associated with the mine available
3.  You have know idea how deep the mine runs, how many side tunnels there are, etc.

Just like a pothole in the road filled with rain water.  It could be two inches deep and you're ok driving over it, or it could be a foot deep and you'd blow a tire and bend a rim if you drive over it.

Sometimes there truly are unknowns.

A  lot of those mines have records, the one I had interest in had lots of records.

Any one that had experience would have known that there was water backed up in that mine.

They used the heavy equipment to open the mine entrance,  When they seen they had a problem why didn't they use the same equipment to fill in the entrance,  block the flow?

Next question,  just what are you going to clean with this mine?  you have a mountain full of minerals, lead copper zinc silver a little gold rock and dirt.

You have rain and snow on the mountain,  the water from this soaks into the mountain through all the minerals comes out some where down hill.

All of this occurring naturally,  Where do you think the water that came out of that mine came from?  did you think the miners just left it there?

[Deleted]

Aug 14, 2015 14:43:31 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Aug 14, 2015 14:05:14 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Building a closable sluice gate or valve would not of added much to the cost.  How about digging a runoff hole/pond before hand ?  That wouldn't cost much either.  Especially when heavy metal contamination is possible.  The engineering had to be second rate.  Not acceptable for that type of pollutant.  Yes I'm unhappy it occurred, but not with you.

BTW - just noticed your tagline - cute! Morbid, but cute!

Sounds like you know more about engineering than I do (which is painfully easy BTW).  Wouldn't a runoff pond have to be sealed so the contaminated water doesn't seep into the ground/water-table anyway? Are there liners big enough and durable enough to be practical for that?

I'm asking because I honestly don't know.

I'll be the first to agree sometime our rules make us shoot ourselves in the foot.  Somehow I'm willing to bet the cost effective, stop-gap measure you described isn't considered durable enough to be a permitted solution.

Used to work for a major chemical company years ago so I picked up a little knowledge here and there.   Cost effective stop gap solutions usually didn't fit the safety specs.

I'm not aware of the permit-able things that they're self-allowed to do.   You got me there.  Yes, I've been an engineer my whole life and it drives the DW crazy.  The only guy I know that has a dozer for his business that is for large jobs (I think it's a Caterpillar D-9 or newer equivalent.) said he could dig out a 10 million gallon retention pond in a couple of hours even with shelf rock present.  (Saw him on Sunday for coffee with the guys)  He now charges 85 dollars an hour to work your project.  I think a long term retention pond would need to be sealed but as a cheap safety net, pumping out excess runoff into a dug hole would have to be much better than what occurred. He made one of my ponds about 13 years ago and it takes months for water to seep out the levee side when it's high. I guess I'm just old, and old school. Where a major screw up is less preferable than following the rules. 

[OldCoyote]

The Chinese government and the U.S.  EPA Reading from the same prepared statements.

NOTHING HAPPENING HERE FOLKS,  JUST MOVE ON.

There now, don't we all feel better that we have the reinsurances from our Parallel governments that every thing is good?


www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dead-fish-tianjin_55d6be20e4b0f593f7f6eed3?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=WorldPost§ion=world&kvcommref=mostpopular

[OldCoyote]

A man in Wyoming is in line to be fined $16 million for building a small pond on his property.


www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/28/wyoming-man-challenges-outrageous-epa-fines/?icid=maing-grid7%7Caol20-g%7Cdl10%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D-1980011608  

Wow $16 million for a pond,  so on this scale what is the EPA going to fine itself for the toxic waste spill for the Colorado mine?

Maybe $2 trillion,  that's going to raise the National deficit.

[OldCoyote]

I just bumped this to see if anyone here has any concern about someone that in line to be $16 million for something that has almost no environmental impact,

Compared to an agency of our Government (same agency)  that has dumped tons of toxic water,  with lots of Mercury, lead, and arsenic into the drinking water of millions.

EPA,  What a bunch of SUPER hypocrites.