Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Local10 WPLG)   Thanks to a loophole in the rewrite of the Clean Water Act your favorite reservoir may now be considered a "waste treatment system". Duke sucks   (local10.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Electricity generation, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Coal, Nuclear power, Clean Water Act, Sutton Lake, power company, hot water  
•       •       •

2338 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 27 Sep 2020 at 9:17 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



30 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-27 7:04:50 PM  
Random internet factoid: The second-largest lake in Bolivia is called Lake Poopo. It is not a freshwater lake.
 
2020-09-27 7:21:56 PM  
It's not a "loophole", it's by design.
 
2020-09-27 8:15:08 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 9:21:39 PM  

King Something: It's not a "loophole", it's by design.


I always wondered about that, it's literally impossible to make a knot or tie a sail or any other useful thing you can do w/ a rope or string w/o creating a loophole. The whole purpose requires a loophole at some point in time.
 
2020-09-27 9:26:49 PM  
Sure, if by "reservoir" you mean "power plant cooling pond."  If your community gets its water from a cooling pond you've got bigger problems.
 
2020-09-27 9:35:10 PM  
Alcoa & The TVA didn't create all of those lakes because they love water skiing.
 
2020-09-27 9:39:41 PM  
seems some are not a water treatment area

38 million gallons down the drain...
https://time.com/66459/portland-reser​v​oir-pee/
 
2020-09-27 9:41:16 PM  

Trocadero: King Something: It's not a "loophole", it's by design.

I always wondered about that, it's literally impossible to make a knot or tie a sail or any other useful thing you can do w/ a rope or string w/o creating a loophole. The whole purpose requires a loophole at some point in time.


https://grammarist.com/interesting-wor​ds/loophole/#:~:text=The%20word%20loop​hole%20is%20commonly,in%20regards%20to​%20tax%20law.&text=These%20narrow%20sl​its%20were%20known,or%20a%20outlet%20o​f%20escape.

I guess it is a very old word. If DL:DR, it refers to the 16th century arrow slits in castles, spelled lupen. Archers used them. So it is literally a hole in a wall.
 
2020-09-27 9:43:01 PM  
When I was growing up in the 70s, was always subjected to the crying native American commercial about the pollution that we subjected our waterways to. Obviously the only thing those in the government learned is that we need to go back to those days.
 
2020-09-27 9:47:11 PM  

recombobulator: Sure, if by "reservoir" you mean "power plant cooling pond."  If your community gets its water from a cooling pond you've got bigger problems.


Not a particularly helpful article.

Coal ash is a problem but if a site has a purpose built cooling pond that isn't open for recreational use, then it's not clear why you'd try to have that meet Clean Water Act requirements.

If a large reservoir is used for cooling water but isn't exposed to coal ash, then that also doesn't seem to be an issue.

Are environmental groups implying that if something is used for cooling water, then it be classified as a cooling pond and therefore the power company is then not responsible for contamination that might occur from coal ash near it?
 
2020-09-27 9:47:42 PM  

thehellisthis: Alcoa & The TVA didn't create all of those lakes because they love water skiing.


A lot of those are for hydro power though, and are legit reservoirs instead of cooling ponds.
 
2020-09-27 10:03:26 PM  

Nuclear Monk: recombobulator: Sure, if by "reservoir" you mean "power plant cooling pond."  If your community gets its water from a cooling pond you've got bigger problems.

Not a particularly helpful article.

Coal ash is a problem but if a site has a purpose built cooling pond that isn't open for recreational use, then it's not clear why you'd try to have that meet Clean Water Act requirements.

If a large reservoir is used for cooling water but isn't exposed to coal ash, then that also doesn't seem to be an issue.

Are environmental groups implying that if something is used for cooling water, then it be classified as a cooling pond and therefore the power company is then not responsible for contamination that might occur from coal ash near it?


I'm not a hydrologist or whatever kind of engineer designs power plant cooling systems, but it seems to me that the simplest thing would be to ensure that return water exiting the power plant was clean.  It's already flowing through pipes, so it should be relatively straightforward to filter it before it reaches the pond.  Then you wouldn't have to worry about the pond, and the clean water act could continue to apply.

But that would make too much sense.  And what the hell do I know anyway?
 
2020-09-27 10:09:48 PM  
ec.europa.euView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 10:13:09 PM  

shaggai: When I was growing up in the 70s, was always subjected to the crying native American commercial about the pollution that we subjected our waterways to. Obviously the only thing those in the government learned is that we need to go back to those days.


He's italian.
 
2020-09-27 10:16:07 PM  
Jon Oliver being full of Waste Treatment doesn't have the same ring
 
2020-09-27 10:17:53 PM  

shaggai: When I was growing up in the 70s, was always subjected to the crying native American commercial about the pollution that we subjected our waterways to. Obviously the only thing those in the government learned is that we need to go back to those days.


What part of Great Again did you misunderstand?
 
2020-09-27 10:28:29 PM  
Not just your local law.
The Clean Waters Act affects a lot of treaties with Canada.

The Boundaries Water Treaty, which defines the rules for any water body that crosses the border,
The Migratory Waterfowl Treaty, and ask Ducks Unlimited about their opinion on that,
The Migratory Birds treaty, see above,
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Treaty,
and likely a bunch of others.
 
2020-09-27 10:46:39 PM  
If I were king and tyrant, no business would be allowed to operate without also having a plan to safely dispose of its waste products.

Oh, does that mean your plant or factory gets shut down and a hundred people lose their jobs?

Good. Maybe the next factory that opens up will realize I'm not dicking around.
 
2020-09-27 10:49:05 PM  
Now we will all know how it feels to live in Flint, Michigan
 
2020-09-27 10:59:33 PM  

W_Scarlet: If I were king and tyrant, no business would be allowed to operate without also having a plan to safely dispose of its waste products.

Oh, does that mean your plant or factory gets shut down and a hundred people lose their jobs?

Good. Maybe the next factory that opens up will realize I'm not dicking around.


I wholeheartedly agree, but this'll be the response: "Then how can we compete with countries that have no environmental standards?  We need to shiat in our own bed or else we'll lose out to people who shiat in their beds!"

The answer: tariffs.  If your foreign factory can show that it meets US environmental standards then you get a tariff waiver.  We can have reciprocity with other countries.  We certify their pollution control practices, they certify ours, and tariffs are suspended.

We can do the same thing with labor standards, human rights, etc.
 
2020-09-27 11:40:30 PM  
You farkers keep voting for a party that keeps saying it wants to cut regulations this is what you get you get what you deserve
 
2020-09-27 11:51:36 PM  
Yeah, the article wasn't very helpful, but there were some  nuggets:  the power companies are writing legislation and the EPA wants to leave it to the states.   That rarely ends well, since states love to give breaks to attract big polluters and the bankrolls.

Reservoirs have always been battlegrounds.   The states want flood control, the boaters want  them full to the brim all the time; you gotta stock them with fish that will survive the big polluters; you destroy a habitat and create a new one that affects everyone in the area; and on and on.
 
2020-09-28 12:06:51 AM  
lh3.googleusercontent.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 2:07:14 AM  
AppleOptionEsc:

...which by design allows the desired object, an arrow, through the impenetrable wall.

Thus, loopholes are not found so much as built. In digital age lingo, they're a backdoor.

We latch onto words in the weirdest way, and never by accident.

/Entomology is the bee's knees.
 
2020-09-28 3:23:54 AM  

mrparks: AppleOptionEsc:

...which by design allows the desired object, an arrow, through the impenetrable wall.

Thus, loopholes are not found so much as built. In digital age lingo, they're a backdoor.

We latch onto words in the weirdest way, and never by accident.

/Entomology is the bee's knees.


I was hoping someone would bring that observation up.

My analogy in my head goes, the lawmakers build that wall. If you get lucky from the outside, you can exploit a loophole. You can find a flaw in the system.

But just as likely, those that built that law, put that there on purpose to hurt anyone who dared challenge the system.

A loophole has a double meaning depending on what side of the wall you stand on. Cheating at a game because you know the judges. Or being lucky.
 
2020-09-28 5:29:53 AM  
i2-prod.dailystar.co.ukView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 9:47:35 AM  
There's a scenario in Cities Skylines about this.
 
2020-09-28 10:39:40 AM  
Clinton Lake mentioned in the article (built as a cooling reservoir for the Clinton Nuclear Generating Station) might be living on borrowed time. When it was threatened to close the power plant without a tax subsidy, the question was about whether the lake would still exist. The NRC requires land that nuclear power plants are built on to be restored to their original state after the plant is closed and demolished. The question is whether this would mean demolishing the dam and draining the lake, which locals don't want because they use the lake for recreation.
 
2020-09-28 12:28:27 PM  
Not a flaw but a feature of this administration.
 
2020-09-28 8:25:38 PM  

recombobulator: Nuclear Monk: recombobulator: Sure, if by "reservoir" you mean "power plant cooling pond."  If your community gets its water from a cooling pond you've got bigger problems.

Not a particularly helpful article.

Coal ash is a problem but if a site has a purpose built cooling pond that isn't open for recreational use, then it's not clear why you'd try to have that meet Clean Water Act requirements.

If a large reservoir is used for cooling water but isn't exposed to coal ash, then that also doesn't seem to be an issue.

Are environmental groups implying that if something is used for cooling water, then it be classified as a cooling pond and therefore the power company is then not responsible for contamination that might occur from coal ash near it?

I'm not a hydrologist or whatever kind of engineer designs power plant cooling systems, but it seems to me that the simplest thing would be to ensure that return water exiting the power plant was clean.  It's already flowing through pipes, so it should be relatively straightforward to filter it before it reaches the pond.  Then you wouldn't have to worry about the pond, and the clean water act could continue to apply.

But that would make too much sense.  And what the hell do I know anyway?


I don't think keeping the return water clean is an issue.  The concern seems to be that if the receiving body is declared a cooling pond, then the power plant is now no longer on the hook for keeping coal ash runoff (which is typically stockpiled and/or disposed of onsite) from entering and polluting that the same water body...even if it that water body exists for other purposes that are not impacted by it being a receiving body for clean cooling water discharge (natural water body, reservoir, etc.).  I can't see permit agencies letting that interpretation fly.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.