Talk:Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Benzine/benzene

I think the cited CNN article got the spelling wrong (a fairly common occurrence on CNN). Benzine doesn't pose a large health hazard compared to benzene, a carcinogen that was formerly produced from coal. --Pyrochem (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Should we go for WP:DYK? A photo would be really helpful. Badagnani (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Did you know that the Dec. X coal sludge spill in Tennessee(sp?) was the largest in U.S. history and covered X acres up to 6 feet deep. Since you wouldn't use the wow stuff for the intro... ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some of that back in the lead. Anyway, we've just been added on the main page. We were at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, and are now in the news section on the main page. Badagnani (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the relevance of having a coal slurry spillage in the news? It's hardly significant outside the area of the United States where it happened? --Balloholic (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because it's the largest spill in history in the US or alike. 80.203.75.162 (talk) 14:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh I would understand the notability of an article in the context of being a biggest, oldest, longest thing, but ITN? Is news really this thin? --Balloholic (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Other disasters

This, on a separate note not related to the move suggestion, reminds of Aberfan, which was a similar accident many years ago. Simply south not SS, sorry 15:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was another instance of a waste pile/pond failing, and its consequences were far more severe. In that case, the waste slid down a mountainside into the valley below, and many lives were lost. In this incident, the waste pond was in or just above the floodplain of a large river (see File:Kingston-tennessee-fossil-plant1.jpg for a general idea of what the area looks like), not above a steep mountain valley. Several nearby houses were damaged (a few are now deemed to be totally destroyed) and material was released into the river, but this wasn't a landslide, and there was no loss of life. Additionally, there isn't very much downstream transport of solids because the river is impounded by a dam and flow into the area can be controlled by limiting releases from upstream dams. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Images 12/27/2008

Most of Swan Pond Road and Swan Pond Circle — which run along the spillway inlet where the spill occurred— are roadblocked, but I was able to find a few good shots for Wikimedia:

Image 1 — This is the backyard of a house along Emory River Road (two or three miles north of Kingston), across the river from the spill inlet. The line of debris shows how far up the wave created by the spill extended. The white object on the right is an overturned rowboat.

Image 2 — View from the half-mile or so of Swan Pond Road that wasn't roadblocked. This debris, which fills the inlet, is appx. 1 mile from the retention pond that failed, and two miles or so upstream from the Emory River.

Image 3 — Shoreline of the Emory River opposite the spillway inlet.

Image 4 — View across the Emory River toward the mouth of the pond's spillway inlet, now filled with ash and debris.

Image 5 — Close-up of the fly ash material. This was in the spillway inlet, a mile or so from the retention pond.

Image 6 — The confluence of the Clinch and Emory Rivers, with the Kingston Fossil Plant in the distance. I've already added this one to the article body.

Image 7 — A large wall of ash and debris, viewed across the spillway inlet from Swan Pond Road, appx. 1 mile from the retention pond. I've added this one to the article body.

Image 8 — Poor quality zoom shot of the retention pond area from across the river. The mess is on the far right.

I added the last two to the article, but feel free to switch them out or add any as you see fit. I'll add coorindates shortly. Bms4880 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You took these yourself??? You deserve a medal. Seriously. They are excellent. Badagnani (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Previous coal fly ash disasters

A number of previous coal fly ash disasters are mentioned here (most dealing with water contamination by toxic metals in fly ash at other facilities). This article still doesn't address testing of the released ash itself, only of the water, and this article mentions the frustration of local residents who are not being told what toxins are actually in the ash. The above article mentions previous instances of water contamination by coal fly ash, in some cases necessitating lawsuits and cleanups. Badagnani (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The link was dead. Try this one. Bms4880 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What's to blame?

The weather which didn't do anything like this before during the few years that thing has been there, or the incompetence of whomever was supposed to be stacking clay dirt on top of that ash at regular intervals, but didn't?

Seriously, if you get a good look at one of those chuncks of solid junk, you'll notice that the clay dirt was not put onto the ash as many times as was necessary. I hope they actually have someone professionally investigate the whole thing, and not just say "Oh it's just a bad spot of weather". Seriously, someone has got a ton of explaining to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.122.204 (talk) 09:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Has clay layering been mentioned in any of the news reports? How do you know this? Badagnani (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I went up to see the damage with my dad, and we saw the house-sized blocks of stuff with our own eyes. The layers of ash far outnumber the layers of clay dirt intended to keep the ash from going anywhere. I do not know if any news station has reported it, but it is something that should be worth mentioning. An example of the layering in case there are no pictures showing it no the net somewhere:

Edit: Ok so I guess the text-box thing didn't work, so here's a proportion comparison: 1 layer of clay dirt, 9 layers of ash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.54.219 (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"...100 times the amount of radioactivity"?

The article has this sentence:

Coal fly ash also contains up to 100 times the amount of radioactivity as contained in nuclear waste.

The Scientific American article cited does actually appear to be saying exactly that[1], except that later on in the article[2], it appears to be referring to local exposure surrounding a coal vs. nuclear power plant, rather than to all waste products generated. I think this point should be cleared up. 70.20.153.165 (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to say low-level waste, as fly ash is nowhere near as radioactive as high-level waste such as spent fuel rods (lower by an order of magnitude at least). Fly ash *may* be 100 times (though this does seem excessive) more radioactive than low level radioactive waste (which varies from the radioactivity of granite to a few times that), or they may be talking about an average, of total radioactivity over total mass. Either way, though, the original phrasing was misleading. 74.197.36.137 (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence entirely. The Sci Am article didn't make much sense -- I figure that the information there is garbled. It's likely that the intent was to say something like the total annual U.S. generation of fly ash contains more radioactivity than the total annual U.S. generation of rad waste from nuclear power. The concentration of radioactivity in fly ash is, however, lower than in almost any rad waste. The change to "low level" rad waste didn't really help -- note that under U.S. definitions "low level" waste can range from hardly radioactive at all to very highly radioactive. --Orlady (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is reputable and the text therein clearly stated. Badagnani (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific American is normally a reliable source, but the short article was basically a "fluff piece" that does not make much sense. It is true that the amount of radioactivity released from U.S. coal-fired power plants exceeds the amount released from U.S. nuclear power plants, but the assertion that fly ash has a higher concentration of radioactivity than radioactive waste is utterly untrue. Furthermore, it isn't particularly relevant to this article. Accordingly, I have reverted your restoration of that text. --Orlady (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. WP bases its content on sources. This source is reputable and there was no consensus for your blanking of the entire sentence, which is extremely relevant, as various officials are saying things like "I wouldn't wade in it, but also wouldn't worry about it, as you can't really say it's toxic; it's basically inert," etc. Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this illustration and explanation of why it is that too much of science and engineering content in Wikipedia is utter C*R*A*P. --Orlady (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please moderate your tone. If you believe there is no uranium or radioactivity in coal fly ash, you're free to do that. However, Scientific American says there is. They do have an editorial department that vets all articles they publish, and if you're correct that the material contains no radioactivity they'll likely get a number of letters of correction from scientists who read the magazine. However, those haven't yet been published, and the article not yet retracted. I see that your sarcastic use of profanity doesn't address at all the TVA's statement that "I wouldn't wade in it, but you can't really call it toxic; it's basically inert," leading one to believe that you believe that statement (contrary to the EPA's findings, as well as all scientific studies of the material, many available via Google Books, which show it to be extremely hazardous) is true. Badagnani (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

While I assume that the Scientific American article is technically correct, it is also too vague to merit citation here. To say that fly ash "may" emit 100x the radioactivity of nuclear waste (what level of nuclear waste is not specified) is like saying that groundwater "may" naturally contain toxic concentrations of arsenic. Both statements are literally true and attention-grabbing, but are both too vague to apply to a particular instance without more site-specific information. Some lignite coal beds are anomalously high in uranium, to the point where their coal ash has been used as a commercial source of uranium (see Uranium mining in the United States#By state#North Dakota) but other coal beds are anomalously low in radioactive sources. The Scientific American article says nothing reliable concerning radioactive danger from the fly ash in this spill. Plazak (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This misses the point entirely. As mentioned no fewer than two or three times above, the TVA is saying, "I wouldn't wade in it or pick it up, but this stuff can't really be called toxic; it's basically inert," when tests show that such fly ash contains significant levels of many heavy metals, arsenic, and (according to Scientific American) radioactivity. Blanking that sourced text, whether it's 100 times or 50 times, was and is not proper. Badagnani (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand. All dirt emits radioactivity. Granite is anomalously radioactive. Bricks are anomalously radioactive. That some fly ash emits anomalously high radioactivity does not mean that the fly ash involved in this spill is anomalouly high in radioactive elements - and much less that it poses a human radiation hazard. Metals contents of coal are also highly variable. Metals toxicity depends not on total concentrations, but on the amount of metals in a chemical form that is able to dissolve. Much depends on the route of exposure: some material may be safe to touch, but not to ingest ot inhale. Certainly, if you have information that this particular fly ash either poses a radiation hazard, or is defined as toxic by the Toxicity Characteristic Leach Procedure, then by all means those facts belong in the article. Plazak (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have different concerns about the use of Sciam here. It appears to be a case of OR. This is an article about a coal sludge spill (or whatever you want to call it) in Tennessee not flyash. It is not appropriate for editors to find out all the negative or postive things about flyash and add them to the article. Especially not in an attempt to respond to reliably sourced claims. If the claims are inaccurate then we can presume someone would have responded to them and we can cite that. If no one responded either the claims are not inaccurate or they are not noteable enough for inclusion. Either way, engaging in OR in the article is not the solution Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

To repeat an important point: the material released was not coal sludge. It was fly ash (and water).

Regarding the issue of radioactivity in fly ash, in this instance, Wikipedia may not be the first entity to associate the SciAm article with this incident. The Knoxville News Sentinel reported:

A December 2007 article in Scientific American magazine quotes Dana Christensen, associate director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as saying radiation-related health risks posed by coal by-products are slight. "Other risks like being hit by lightning are three to four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants," Christensen told the magazine. Christensen couldn't be reached Wednesday for comment on the Kingston incident.

That quotation did not, however, derive same conclusion from the Sci Am article that Wikipedians chose to derive. --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It may be okay to use this source, but likely not the SciAm one except as a backing source. And I repeat, I don't care what you want to call it. Fly ash, coal sludge, it's irrelevant to the main point which is that we shouldn't be engaging in OR Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing original. The article was about coal fly ash. Why do editors above keep saying the article was talking about sludge from washing coal? It doesn't. Why are editors apparently commenting without having actually first read the SciAm article, which from their comments seems to be the case? Badagnani (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

People keep saying the article is about sludge from washing coal because that is what "coal sludge" means. I am glad you took the initiative to create the article. I don't blame you for choosing that term for the article title because you apparently were not familiar with the terminology and the media reports of the incident were using similar terminology. If I were to create an article about a rock music topic, it is likely that I would make a similar error in terminology. In that circumstance, I hope you would take the initiative to correct my error -- I certainly would not stand in your way. --Orlady (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is off-topic. The SciAm article was about coal fly ash. Badagnani (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is off-topic. Let's put this in perspective: The SciAm article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste) states that the burning of coal can concentrate Uranium and Thorium in the resulting fly ash to up to 10 times their original levels. Okay. "fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste." What type of nuclear waste? Low level? High level? Overall average? "individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation"" 1.9 millirem is tiny. I'm guessing the radioactive waste they are referring to is low-level waste, things like used protective garments used in low-radioactivity areas. You'd get more differentiation in dosage from living over granite rather than shale than from fly ash contamination.

Look, the point I'm trying to make is that the article isn't really relevant. Throwing in "Fly ash may be 100 times more radioactive than nuclear waste" does nothing but deceive people. If someone without prior knowledge reads that statement they will make a series of false assumptions: 1. That all fly ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. 2. That the fly ash involved in this incident is radioactive. 3. That the nuclear waste mentioned is high level waste like spent fuel rods. This will give the reader the impression that there is some serious radioactive hazard involved in this accident when there really isn't. 1.9 millirem. That's what you get from drinking five cups of strong black coffee. All the statement does is mislead the reader, and thus it does not belong in this article unless someone can dig up more definitive numbers and put the statement in proper context. That's all there is to it. As it is, the statement, "Fly ash may be up to 100 times more radioactive than nuclear waste" most definitely does NOT belong in the article. 74.197.36.137 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid distortions

This is a very big mess, but that does not justify keeping serious distortions in the article. This was not a mining accident. The material released was not coal slurry, coal tailings or other coal mining waste, or sludge; it was fly ash and water (basically, an industrial form of mud). The fact that it is wet (not dry) and is not light and fluffy like wood ash does not change the fact that the technical term for this material is fly ash, nor does it justify calling it something that it is not.

There were several serious errors in the early story by CNN upon which this article was largely based. CNN said that Kingston was in central Tennessee (wrong: it's in east Tennessee), 40 miles east of Knoxville (wrong: Kingston is west of Knoxville) and that the pond was 80 acres (all authoritative reports say 40 acres). There often are errors in breaking news reports, but that does not justify continuing to repeat the erroneous details after they have been corrected.

There are still many discrepancies in reports on the volume of material released. Not only do the estimates keep changing, but it appears to me that news reporters are garbling this information because they are confused over the difference between cubic yard, cubic feet, and gallons. Volumes will need to be adjusted "after the dust settles."

Although the article says this spill was the largest in the U.S., and that may be true, I don't see a source to back this up. --Orlady (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It was fly ash sludge or fly ash slurry (using the latter if you prefer euphemisms). It was not fly ash, because fly ash is the product, in fine particulate solid form (rather than aqueous form) as removed from the power generation facility following combustion before the water is added. Please see [3] and [4]. I think you already knew that, though, because you appear to edit a whole lot on Roane County and East Tennessee energy generation-related issues. Badagnani (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank you for reversing your earlier insistence on calling this "coal sludge" or "coal slurry" (I'll go fix that error in the other articles where that misstatement appears) -- I think we all agree that this is not coal slurry, much less coal sludge.
The word "slurry" is not a euphemism; it is a standard term for a flowable mixture of a liquid and particulate solids. See this Google search for verification. "Sludge" admittedly is used popularly as a an all-encompassing synonym for any semisolid material that might otherwise be called "slush," "goo," "muck," or "scum". The word "sludge" is being used in this loose and uninformative manner by some of the reporters and headline writers who are covering this story. However, in a more technical context the word has a more specific meaning. In this stricter sense, it refers to certain semisolid products of treatment of wastewater, water, or other substances that are inherently difficult to dewater, notably including the materials that are somewhat euphemistically called "biosolids." The material discussed in this article is not sludge. --Orlady (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the definitions it seems to be a slurry. I'm not clear on the objection. What am I missing? And it's also accurate to call it a mining disaster it seems to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Coal-power disaster, certainly; mining disaster, no way. Mining does not encompass the entire fuel cycle. Next we'll be calling home electrical fires "mining disasters" because the electricity was generated from coal. Plazak (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see you're right. It's a coal power plant disaster, as it wasn't a mine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- a pond doesn't contain wastewater, 'pool' is a more correct word. A pond that has been enlarged to hold wastewater is a pool. beadtot66.217.66.118 (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What do the sources call it--a pond or pool? A Google News search should give the answer. Badagnani (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the sources call it a pond. Badagnani (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment our own articles on slurry and sludge semi support the above view. However we also have oil sludge, Martin County sludge spill and Sludge (film) all of which are uses inconsistent with the above description as well as several mentions in Mountaintop removal mining. In other words, whether to call this sludge or slurry, I don't think there's a simple answer here since per wikipedia policy we often/usually defer to common usage even if that usage can be deemed inaccurate. The most likely exception would be if the case can be made if one is much more common in scientific circles. P.S. Just to be clear I'm not suggesting we call this coal sludge. I am only commenting on whether to call this fly ash sludge or fly ash slurry Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us of the term oil sludge. That usage of the word "sludge" is in addition to the ones I mentioned above, but oil sludge also has no relation to the stuff released at Kingston, which is not in any way oily. The stuff released at Kingston can be best understood as an unbelievably large amount of ugly gray mud. As for Martin County sludge spill, Sludge (film), and Mountaintop removal mining, all of those articles are about coal mining waste. This article is about waste from an electric power plant. --Orlady (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

'According to a fact sheet issued by TVA, ash in the Kingston dredge cell storage areas was about 55 feet above the water level in the nearby ash pond, prior to the failure. Missy Hedgecoth, the manager of coal combustion by products for TVA, said Wednesday that the cell was "a lot higher than any other internal dredge cell that we have in TVA."' http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/25/ash-storage-facility-higher-than-any-other/ This was a 55 or more foot high pile of wet fly ash. not slurry. 'The spherical shape and particle size distribution of fly ash also make it a good mineral filler in hot mix asphalt applications and improve the fluidity of flowable fill and grout when it is used for those applications.' http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/imr/ccps/flyash.htm So fly ash is used to make fill flowable and the fill flowed... into the river... SFCharlie (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ash Pond before spill

From measurements on the topo map of the fly ash slurry pond before the spill, the pond is over 0.6 miles in the NE SW direction and over 0.4 miles in the NW-SE direction for about 0.24 square miles or about 154 acres. If the pond was only 40 acres, the pile would have had to be about 84 feet high to equal 5.4 million cubic yards. "Ash storage facility 'higher than any other' Cell size: Kingston site 55 feet above water level in pond " http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/dec/25/ash-storage-facility-higher-than-any-other/ SFCharlie (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of the recent articles state that it was 60 feet off the ground. If you can find reliable sources, go ahead and add the height to the article. Badagnani (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that the TVA's own numbers don't add up. My best info is the the portion of the original pond that spilled was about 60 acres by 55 ft deep, but I don't think the whole story is in yet. SFCharlie (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The values reported for ash volume have been fluctuating as wildly as the Dow Jones average. However, making our own measurements from air photos and topo maps and reporting them in the article would be a prima facie case of original research. Although the information in the press has been inconsistent, let's leave the business of measuring this disaster to TVA, state officials, and other organizations that are investigating things on the ground. --Orlady (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's very clear, as mentioned just above, that some articles have reported how high off the ground the pond was. That's a very far thing from original research. Please read discussion postings more carefully before responding to them, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very well aware that newspaper articles have reported the height of the embankment, based on information released by TVA. If you will recall, I'm the one who has been reading these stories in my local newspaper and seeing them on the local TV news. This discussion was started not to discuss the height of the pond, but rather to discuss discrepancies between the pond's apparent dimensions and the reported size of the ash release. That's what I responded to.

I am also extremely well aware that the material released was not "coal sludge," but rather was fly ash, and that the article has continued to carry an inaccurate and misleading title because of your opposition to changing it. Has your continued attention to the details of the event given you a new perspective on the article name? --Orlady (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You did state that adding to the article sourced information about the height of the pond (lord knows why one would want to exclude that from the article) would be a bad idea, as original research. I responded saying that it would not be original research. Regarding the material that was released, it was not fly ash, which is a fine powder; it was fly ash slurry, which is an aqueous mixture of fly ash, water, and possibly also other liquids. Badagnani (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

First, my heart goes out to the good folk who are living through this. The New York Times has an excellent graphic that explains the difference between the Main Ash Pond, the stilling pond, and the dredge cells. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/12/25/us/20081225_SLUDGE_GRAPHIC.html I agree that the information in the press that we are requested to use as source is very unstable, and I have delayed adding information to the article. I hope this respects your intentions. The "new video" on the TVA site appears to show the new weir is backing up and flooding the area of the ash flow. http://152.85.42.31/Kingston-12-27.wmv Has anyone seen anything in the press about this? SFCharlie (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2008

If no one objects, could i move this to 2008 Tennessee coal sludge spill? Simply south not SS, sorry 13:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How many coal sludge spills happen in Tennessee every year? And how many of them are notable? This is riduculous. --Balloholic (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know as i am not in that area. It just seems to be the standard for any accidents etc. Simply south not SS, sorry 15:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't. For starters, the material isn't coal sludge, but fly ash. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that this accident is going to be remembered as being nearly as momentous as these titles imply -- note that the somewhat smaller fly ash release that occurred at Martins Creek in eastern Pennsylvania in 2005 isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia (AFAICT). My druthers would be to call this the Kingston Fossil Plant fly ash release, or even to merge it into Kingston Fossil Plant. --Orlady (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's 50 times larger than the Exxon Valdez in terms of volume of pollutant spilled. Whether people remember it or not, that fact doesn't change. Badagnani (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

And also, the timing is important. This may cause the EPA to revisit regulation of fly ash, and this comes at a time when the industry is trying to sell "Clean Coal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.77.42 (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

How about renaming it the Kingston Fossil Plant spill? The name is short, simple, specific, and avoids the sludge/slurry and coal/fly ash issues. Because "spill" is an uncontrolled release, that would seem more appropriate than "release". Plazak (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingston Fossil Plant spill works for me. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Object to name change - We don't call the Martin County sludge spill the "Massey Energy sludge spill" because that company's name (as the name of the particular TVA plant) isn't well known. The state of Tennessee is. Badagnani (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingston is not the name of a company (unlike Massey Energy), but is the name of the city where the power plant is located (like Martin County). Kingston Fossil Plant is the full name of the plant where the event occurred. I see the name Kingston Fossil Plant spill as analogous to the existing article names Kingston courthouse shooting (an earlier event in the same town; the name includes the geographic place and a description of the event), Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting (again, includes city name and event description), No. 21 Mine explosion (includes the name of the facility and event description, but no hint of the geographic place), Fraterville Mine disaster (includes the name of the facility, which is the same as the name of the geographic place, and a vague description of the event), and Cross Mountain Mine Disaster (similar to the previous one, but it does not include the name of a community). --Orlady (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Support the name change. "Tennessee" is too broad. It may work for the next few weeks, but in years to come, it will likely confuse people. The state's name being more well-known is irrelevant. No one is calling Three Mile Island the "Pennsylvania Nuclear Core Meltdown." Such disasters are almost always given the name of the nearby community or power plant, rather than the state as a whole. Bms4880 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it must be mentioned what type of spill it was in the title. "...spill" is just not descriptive enough. Badagnani (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In view of the fact that the original name is seriously inaccurate and is causing thoughtful readers to conclude that the spill was of "coal sludge", I am moving the article to Kingston Fossil Plant fly ash spill, which name I believe is fully consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). --Orlady (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem was, there wasn't consensus for that. It wasn't a "fly ash spill," it was a "fly ash slurry" spill. If that's changed, I don't think I'd have a problem with the page move. Badagnani (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for a specific perfect name does not entitle you to insist on keeping a name that is agreed to be erroneous. There may not have been consensus for the new name, but there never was consensus for the name you chose, and that name is seriously inaccurate. This release most definitively was not "coal sludge," but the name of this article has been causing people to conclude that this was a release of coal sludge waste from a coal mine or coal processing plant, when it was a release of ash from a power plant. "Fly ash" was, however, the waste material that was released. The rest of the release was of water; a release of water alone would be called a "flood," which term has not been applied (yet) to this event. The name I chose may not be perfect, but it is far better than the name "coal sludge" name, and no one had commented to the contrary in the 16 hours before I moved the article. I am going to make the same move again.

As for your theory that the material can't be called ash unless it's dry dust, I've seen plenty of power plant ash disposal/storage sites, and I've never seen one where the fly ash was managed outdoors as a loose powder (as you seem to think "fly ash" ought to be). Either the ash is managed wet (as at the Kingston plant), or it is stored in silos awaiting offsite shipment, or it hardens to a cement-like material. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Per wikipedia policy, we generally don't go around chopping and changing names. Even if a name doesn't have consensus, without consensus to move the page shouldn't usually be moved. Normal policy is to discuss a name change until we reach consensus then make the change not prematurely move a page because editors don't like the current name. Perhaps an exception could have been made here if the name was really inaccurate but, the fact that the current name does not have consensus is never justification in itself to change the current name. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The name had been discussed at some length before I moved the article. The seriously misleading nature of the original name was indicated by the way the event was described on the main page under "In the News", as well as the way it was linked from coal-mining articles and discussed here by Wikipedians who assumed (based on the title) that this was a coal mining accident. --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There are generally other liquids contained in fly ash slurry besides H2O; but I would have thought you would have known that, as active as you are on Roane County and East Tennessee energy-generation issues. Badagnani (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have no idea what you are talking about regarding "other liquids contained in fly ash slurry besides H2O". But, then again I live in the local area where this event occurred and I have professional experience dealing with this general topic, so (unlike a large number of the people who have heard this story in the media) I am not able to imagine this as the failure of a mine tailings pond in a high mountain valley. --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nearly every disaster of this type is named after the plant or the adjacent community, rather than the state as a whole. You have not stated why we should make this the exception. Furthermore, the term "coal sludge" is too ambiguous, as it typically refers to waste left over from mining or cleaning coal, whereas the material in this instance is the waste left over from the burning of coal at a coal-fired power plant. TVA describes it here. Bms4880 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

After only limited study of this talk page, it seems there would be consensus for the long name Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry (or sludge) spill to avoid all these moves verging on edit wars? Not sure I am relatively new. -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That works for me. Bms4880 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill is a little long, but far better than the name we have now. Plazak (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Move request

I've placed this on WP:RM to make it a more formal move. Maybe the different options should be listed and then a consensus achieved. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no trouble with Kingston Fossil Plant ash spill, Kingston Fossil Plant fly ash spill, Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash spill, Kingston Fossil Plant ash sludge spill, or Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash sludge spill. I don't agree with anything that uses the broad name of "Tennessee" nor the broad term "coal sludge." Bms4880 (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Kingston Fossil plant coal fly ash slurry spill would have maximum accuracy. As mentioned eight times, it's not an "ash spill" because fly ash is a fine powder and this was an aqueous mixture. Regarding the choice between "slurry" and "sludge," a Google Books search shows that "slurry" is the most widely used scientific/engineering term to refer to an aqueous mixture of fly ash, water, and other liquids, although "sludge" would be a more colloquial term in general use. Badagnani (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer slurry also, as I familiar with the term from science courses. Proposal: insert TVA since it is their plant (like the Exxon spill)? Here is a start to a list. -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• TVA coal fly ash slurry spill
• Kingston TVA coal fly ash slurry spill
• TVA Kingston Fossil plant coal fly ash slurry spill

Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill is fine with me. Bms4880 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill works for me ("Kingston Fossil Plant" is a proper name, so "plant" should be capitalized). Bms4880 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill seems accurate. Badagnani (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine here also. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I would support almost any name that does not continue to perpetuate the serious misconception that this was a release of "coal sludge" (and the associated implication that this was a coal mining accident). I boldly renamed the article early because I perceive that the current name is so wrong that it merits an emergency renaming, without waiting several days for all interested parties to reach consensus on the perfect name for permanent use. While I respect the initiative of the article creator, I still see this as a case for emergency renaming, because the current name is wrong.

Having said that, I note that when there is no "universally agreed-upon common name for an event", Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) encourages selection of a name that incorporates both the "where" and the "what" of the event.
In this case, "Kingston" is the "where", and the full name of the facility( "Kingston Fossil Plant", with all three words capitalized because this is a proper noun) adds important clarification. There is nothing in the naming convention guideline that would support the addition of "TVA" to that part of the name.
That brings us to the "what" of the event. If the "what" were being fully described, it should be called something like "Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash impoundment failure and slurry release," but that's way too much detail. The technical side of me wants to call this a "release" (or possibly even "fly ash flood"), but the word "spill" seems to be what it's being called, so it's a good start on the "what" side. In the principle of keeping the name as concise as possible, while long enough to be identifiable, I find "coal fly ash slurry spill" to be unnecessarily long and detailed. My preference would be either "fly ash spill" (since fly ash is the term most commonly used for the released material) or "coal ash spill" (since it is ash generated by coal combustion, and I think it possible that the pond may have contained bottom ash in addition to fly ash). I don't see a particular need for the word "slurry". AFAICT, the material was not being managed as a slurry. Rather, it was solid material sluiced into an above-ground impoundment contained by earthen dikes. In this kind of situation, the ash usually is kept wet (to keep it from blowing), but it's basically a large pile of dirt with a layer of water on top -- not a slurry. In this case, the dikes failed after several days of heavy rainfall had added a lot of additional water to the impoundment, and the water and ash flowed together out as a slurry. The release was of "ash", however; the word "slurry" merely describes its condition at the time of the release and does not seem necessary to identify the event.
Accordingly, I prefer Kingston Fossil Plant fly ash spill or Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash spill, although I could live with including "slurry" if that's necessary to get the article's creator to accept the need to move this away from the current name. --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think TVA is part of the "what." IMHO, the responsible party is a big part of what "what" is as in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Exxon" was part of the name of the ship that leaked. The ship's name was "Exxon Valdez." The power plant's name is "Kingston Fossil Plant", not "TVA Kingston Fossil Plant". --Orlady (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The ash was in an aqueous mixture, thus "slurry" or some equivalent term is needed. We've already examined the Google Books sources and in fact the material, as stored in aqueous mixture in fly ash ponds, actually is called "fly ash slurry" in the scientific and engineering literature. See this Google Books search. One would think that you would already have known that, with your interest in Roane County energy-generation issues and many years of editing such subjects as a primary area of interest at Wikipedia. It's perplexing why, when it's called "fly ash slurry" in the literature, that you would be so adamant about removing the term. If it were a release of powdered fly ash, we'd refer to the material as fly ash. Badagnani (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "TVA" or "slurry" are necessary, but I'm ok with their inclusion. TVA Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill sounds good, although comically long. The company name is sometimes included, as with the Exxon Valdez spill, and sometimes not, as with the Sago mine disaster (the company's name isn't even in the lead). Bms4880 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Moderating my support for the term slurry: if it is true that the fly ash is just kept wet, and not homogenized, then the fly ash isn't stored as a slurry (to stay true to the most accurate use of the term, AFAIK). A title that includes its name implies that it was homogenized fly ash in water (slurry) that was released. The muck may have been mixed during the rupture to form a technical slurry, but I agree with Bms4880, I don't think the term is necessary. It was stored outside and it rains outside, thus fly ash "dust" becomes fly ash "muck" in real life outside storage conditions. I hope I'm helping here instead of complicating issues. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's really important to examine sources rather than go "off the top of our heads." The this Google Books search shows that it really is called "fly ash slurry," no matter how much the above editor wishes it were not. The wetness does not come from rain but is in fact mixed in by the plant to allow the material to be more easily pumped to the retaining ponds. For this reason, "slurry" really is needed in the title. Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no published books about this particular incident (not yet). Most of those Google Books hits on the term "fly ash slurry" are about using a fly ash slurry as a cement substitute in construction. The fact that some fly ash (with the right chemistry and thermal history) can be mixed with water to form a cementitious slurry does not prove that "fly ash slurry" should be used in this article title. (Indeed, the topic of cementitious slurry does not seem to be relevant to this article.) --Orlady (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you would like to restrict discussion to this particular spill, there are "only" 1,900 or so news articles about this particuar spill that refer to the material spilled as "slurry." Wishing it were powdered ash does not make it so. Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's good that this was not released as a loose powder, since that would create a serious inhalation hazard. I recognize that you have formed the impression that a material must be in powdery form to be called "fly ash," but that impression is not consistent with the standard usage of the term. Meanwhile, other Wikipedians and I are getting tired of removing links to this article from articles about coal mining, coal sludge, and other non-relevant topics -- how many more days do you expect to wait before the name of this article can be corrected? --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The news coverage of this event seems to be converging on calling the released material "coal ash" or "fly ash" or "coal fly ash". This article from today's Knoxville paper calls it "fly ash" in the headline, "coal fly ash" in the lead paragraph, and variously "fly ash," "coal ash sludge," "ash" and "sludge" later in the article. This additional article from the same paper calls it "ash" and "fly ash." This article from Saturday's Tennessean newspaper calls it coal ash, muck, coal fly ash, and ash. This recent AP story calls it "coal ash," "coal fly ash," "ash", and "sludge." Where the articles call it "sludge" or "muck," in all but one case they are describing the material that is deposited on the ground, not the material that was in the pond. When they discuss the way the material was released, they describe it as a mixture of fly ash and water. Given all this, I think the best article name would be Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash spill. And I do hope it will be moved soon, so that Wikipedia will not continue to propagate the misconception that this was a coal-mining disaster. --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a selective reading of the sources. The released material was not fly ash, it was an aqueous mixture of fly ash, water, and possibly other liquids. Thus, the title cannot be "fly ash spill." If it were in powdered form, that would be an appropriate title. Badagnani (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought we all agreed on Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. Are you now opposed to the agreed-upon move? Everyone accepted "slurry" in the title, even though you're the only one who thinks it's necessary, so what is the problem? Bms4880 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I say I opposed that title? I opposed the wording "fly ash spill" because it was not ash, it was a slurry of ash and water. Badagnani (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In spite of earlier queries, you still have not given us any indication what "other liquids" you think were in this release (oil? organic solvents? moonshine?), nor what your source is for that information. As for the "ash" nomenclature, I sympathize with your linguistic sensibilities that say that a material ought not be called "ash" unless it is dry and powdery, but it happens that "ash" is the standard term for the type of material that was released. TVA's website calls this "a release of ash caused by a failure of a coal ash containment retention wall at TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant in East Tennessee"[5]. Interestingly, AFAICT, nowhere on the TVA website does the word "slurry" appear in connection with this event. Local TV news is calling the incident an "ash slide" - a term that first appeared on a TVA fact sheet released on the day of the incident. (I don't recommend using "ash slide" for the article title, but I mention it to indicate yet another term that has been used.) --Orlady (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion here, I believe that Badagnani's main objection to names that include "ash spill" ash been that s/he sees the "ash" part of "ash spill" as inaccurate unless the material was spilled in dry form. I guess I can sympathize, but that's because I see the "spill" part of "ash spill" as a misnomer for this event (but I have acquiesced to the use of "spill" because it seems to be widely used for this event). It appears to me that everyone who has commented here would accept the title Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. Is that a correct impression? If the article is moved to that name, will it stay there for at least 24 hours, or will it be reverted back to Tennessee coal sludge spill once again? --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find this article with my searching, I'd say the name of the article contributed to my problems. I went so far as to create a stub at Harriman Disaster, which I'd humbly suggest is a more evocative title. --Markkidd (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Once we agree on an article title, we'll create some redirects. Bms4880 (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing that more than 48 hours had elapsed without anyone objecting, I completed the move, and revised a large batch of redirect pages. --Orlady (talk) 05:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

why did this happen (mechanism of collapse)

why was there this huge load of "fly ash slurry" at the plant in the first place? Are there political issues preventing proper permanent disposal of the material? Plugwash (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That's how we dispose of stuff. We make big ponds to hold it. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The intention was that the "pond" was the permanent landfill storage. Indeed, most of the material was solid and could have supported itself indefinitely. I suspect what the engineers didn't foresee was the presence layers of saturated material subject to liquefaction that was under pressure deep in the elevated landfill. It was sealed in with impermeable clay on all sides, and ash slowly accumulating above, (inadequate dewatering) and when the pressure finally got too high, pop! When the mechanism is finally agreed upon, there needs to be a section in the article dealing with it. Martino3 (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixup

I'm a bit confused as to where you see source removal; I only deleted one, and that was because it was a blog entry. We discourage blogs regularly, and in this case there are more then ample real sources for that one. I'm just not sure where this large content removal is. Insight? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect. A number of sources were summarily removed. This was not proper, and trying to force it through three times is simply un-Wikipedian. As mentioned, the removals are clearly evident in the diffs. If you didn't notice your own removals of sources, you're simply not taking enough care with your edits. We need to take the utmost care with all edits we make. Don't continue to do that, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, ok, apparently I was speaking a foreign language previously. I'll try again. What sources were summarily removed? How many? Where were they situated? Can I be graced with the knowledge of said source identities? :P Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The removals are clearly evident in the diffs. Take a look, and you will see them. Please don't do that again, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the diffs; even better, I made them. That, to me, indicates that I know what sources were removed and which weren't. From experience and faith in my short-term memory, I can safely assure you that I didn't remove any more than one or two sources at most. So, if you could do me a huge favour and just fill me in? Interestingly enough, my revision contained more text than yours; how is that possible if I was removing things? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One source removed, or two or three...such a mode of discourse (not seeming to care whether it was one, two, or more that were summarily removed) seems to indicate a lack of respect for our data. We really must be as conscientious as possible. Several of the removed sources provided references for discrete figures, amounts, etc., which must absolutely be sourced, and following your three (!) repeated edits, were no longer sourced. The fact that you insisted on reverting, and removing several sources again and again, really does not reflect well on you as an editor. Please don't continue to do that. The refining of the refs is another matter, and that is always greatly appreciated and enhances an article. Badagnani (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, the sources I removed was a blog post and a YouTube video; you don't count on those for discrete figures. I have the feeling you haven't exactly examined my full changes. No matter, though; dare I ask if I can change back to my version, or would you like me to go through and give you a step-by-step guide to my changes? Oh, and thanks for the compliment! :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's just not correct. Please review the diff. There were at least three major news sources summarily removed, which provided sources for various discrete figures, etc. It's inexplicable that repeated reviews of the diffs don't show you your own removals. Please don't continue to do that. Badagnani (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, could you name the sources? By this point it should be well-established that I do not see any error in my ways. Therefore, could you please let me see it in your light? Otherwise we're not gonna get anywhere. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've restored my version. The cited numbers from the lead have been transferred into the article text itself. As for the matter of the blogs, we can discuss that individually; no need to hold up the whole article's cleanup over that. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern over the removal of this source from the lead:

"<code><ref name=CNN-12-26>http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/26/tennessee.sludge/</ref><ref name=Flessner-Sohn>Dave Flessner and Pam Sohn, [http://timesfreepress.com/news/2009/jan/05/tennessee-early-warnings-ash-pond-leaks/?local Early warnings on ash pond leaks; TVA, state inspections show repairs, suspension of deposits at Kingston ash pond], ''[[Chattanooga Times Free Press]]'', January 5, 2009</ref></code>"

CNN and the Times Free Press are not blogs. They should be restored, as they give insight that the TVA knew of potential issues and failures on the dike prior to the collapse. seicer | talk | contribs 12:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

*dies*

You guys are killing me here! Haha, both of those live on later in the article, except I renamed the first one to CNN because it already existed under that label. The second was just relocated. In other words, there was no net gain or loss, only a reorginization. Everything is peachy, no? :>Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I overlooked that. Sorry :) seicer | talk | contribs 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, and I may add some as sources if it is not already covered, but I have been posting various articles from the incident here. Another user has posted images from a fly-over as part of a project. seicer | talk | contribs 15:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's time to set the record straight.

Many early press release contained misinformation. Some of these were due to hastily assembled releases from TVA. TVA has now provided much more considered information. http://www.tva.gov/emergency/pdf/ash_release.pdf This is no longer based on an individual contributor force to measure topo maps to choose between inconsistent data in divergent press releases. If you would prefer to edit your own words, I encourage you to do it now. Respectfully, SFCharlie (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; can you be more specific? Badagnani (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes: We now know the approximate time of the spill (before 1 am), http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472285,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFCharlie (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) That the dike was not earthen, but 70% fly ash and 30% bottom ash. (Yes, the dike was made of the same stuff that spilled.) That it was regulated as a solid landfill, not a pond. The total area (84 acres) and volume (9.4 million cubic yards) of the original dredge cell. The area (60 acres) that spilled. (replace "40 acres" globally). That the plant was located on Swan Pond Rd. in Harriman across the Clinch River from Kingston. That the top of the dike before the spill was at elevation 815 feet (Feb. 2008 Inspection report) and the Emory River (a part of Watts Bar Lake) was 741 feet (dike 74 feet above River). That the spill also broke a water main causing the evacuation of dozens of homes. That the temperature at the time of the spill was about 20 degrees. (It did get down to 12 later that morning after the spill.) That the dredge cells were designed for a 25-year storm of more than 5 inches in one day. Under Legal Action, that the EPA has issued a notice of violation. (the Emory River Dredging Plan has an extreme high res aerial photo of the spill site, http://www.tva.gov/kingston/dredge/index.htm) A wealth of Documents Provided To Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation are available. http://www.tva.gov/kingston/tdec/index.htm These include the sources for much of the above. I will endeavor to cite references for all of the above, but the TVA release I have cited in my first post gives a lot of it. Respectfully, SFCharlie (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; that is very detailed. If the TVA released all of this, is it really trustworthy? Badagnani (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

TVA has become remarkably transparent (maybe due to regulatory and court oversight), but still very open. Cynics may say they just deluged us with info to bury the critical info or its absence, but I believe they are doing the best they can with something neither they nor their consultant expected. (Maybe they should have, but they didn't.) They now have to do this delicate regulatory dance. They are ordered to clean it up, but they have to get permission to precede first, submitting detailed plans of everything they hope to accomplish. Luckily for us, they have released many documents that might never have been in the public domain, let alone readily available online. Respectfully, SFCharlie (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PS they have just rescanned the "brown book", an excellent account of the construction and early operation of the plant. This book provides insight into the intent of the engineers and answers many "why" issues. http://www.tva.com/kingston/tdec/pdf/TVA-00020036.pdf

"Copyright Notice Unless a copyright is indicated, information on this Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published, or otherwise used without TVA's permission. We request that TVA OIG be cited as the source of the information and that any photo credits or bylines by similarly credited to the photographer or author or TVA OIG, as appropriate. If a copyright is indicated on a photo, graphic, or any other material, permission to copy these materials must be obtained from the original source." http://oig.tva.gov/legal.htm posted SFCharlie (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody gone to jail yet for the negligence that caused this spill? Seems like this article needs a section on enforcement actions taken after the spill so it doesn't look like these things can just happen with no accountability. Certainly somebody ought to go to jail for this? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rivers

It seems to me that the penultimate sentence of the introductory paragraph contains errors.

The slurry did not actually travel "across" the main channel of the Emory River, as the sentence implies. Some of the pictures listed in the "Images" section of this discussion show the side of Emory River opposite the spill site, and while there is a wave of jetsam in evidence, there is no ash. I saw the same thing in person. The wave of slurry did cross a finger or two (i.e., Swan Pond, et al., fed by auxiliary streams, Swan Pond Creek, for one) on the West side of the Emory River, and did likely shift the main channel of the river, but it did not cross the main river (at least not until it was swept up by the river's normal current, and if that counts you can say that the ash crossed all the way to New Orleans.) A wall of water, displaced by the ash did indeed cross the river.

This MEMORANDUM from EPA to TVA shows the current state of the rivers

http://www.tva.gov/kingston/dredge/EPA%20OSC%20Dredging%20Determination%203_05_10%20FINAL.pdf

Ash was clearly deposited up and down the Emory River for miles.

Ash was clearly deposited in the Emory river to the far bank opposite the plant and across the main channel of the Emory.

Unfortunately this document doesn't address the extent of the ash in the Clinch, however, I will dig up documents that show that the ash did indead flow upstream as well as downstream in the Clinch. SFCharlie (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the ash did not go "flowing up and down" in the Clinch River. The Clinch joins the Emory a short but still significant distance (at least a mile and a half) downstream from the spill, and there is no reason to suppose that any ash turned the corner at the junction and traveled against the Clinch's flow. Even the mass of water displaced by the cascading ash would have passed quickly by the junction and onward, and, in fact, was negligible in the overall scheme of cubic feet per second inflow to Watts Bar Lake.

Supposition. Actually, the ash had to "turn the corner" to flow upstream in the Emory around several bends and into the Little Emory. The ash flow was over a period of tens of minutes (read TVA's own "root cause" report) SFCharlie (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In the "Details" section, I find it completely unsurprising that a test of water "six miles upstream of the ash flow" showed no contaminants. The cited source seems blissfully uncommitted to any of it.

In the "location" section, the steam plant is not located on the peninsula between the Emory and Clinch rivers, but across the Emory from where it meets the Clinch, or, in other words, across from the peninsula formed by the junction of the two rivers.

Actually, the plant draws cooling water from the Emory and discharges it into the Clinch. The discharge channel to the Clinch is shorter than the intake channel from the Emory. SFCharlie (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is more than four miles from the mouth of the Emory to where the Clinch joins the Tennessee River.

Most of these errors might possibly stem from someone's confusion over which rivers run where near the steam plant.

MikeSoja (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you thoughtful comments. Please feel free to make improvements. You can't break it! -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the location, topographical maps show the mouth of the Emory at appx. 4.5 miles upstream from the mouth of the Clinch. There are peninsulas on both sides of the Emory where it meets the Clinch. Bms4880 (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My maps show more like 4.2 or 4.3 miles, but whichever number one picks, the current "location" text, describing the siting of the steam plant, is awkward and unclear. Yes, there are peninsulas on both sides of the Emory, each also touched by the Clinch, but only one of them is formed by the "confluence" of the two rivers. The Clinch is flowing away from the Emory when it passes the steam plant. Perhaps "profluence" or "diffluence" would be better, or just "between". MikeSoja (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Air photos and data that displayed in presentations I've attended regarding the spill indicate that ash did flow up the Emory River, as well as down the river toward and into the Clinch River. (This is a reservoir, not a free-flowing stream, so there's seldom much of a river current.) Ash did not get deposited on the opposite bank of the Emory River, but ash did pretty much cross the river underwater, filling much of the channel (underwater). Indeed, one of the earliest concerns in cleanup was to remove some of the ash that clogged the channel, in order to reduce the risk of flooding upstream from the spill.

Well, that's clearer than the text currently running. MikeSoja (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also been some movement of ash as a result of storm events subsequent to the spill -- mostly moving ash farther downstream. --Orlady (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiation

How much radioactivity was contained in the fly ash? US coal ash is something like 230 to 2100 Bq/kg. Spill was 1.1 billion US gallons, and slurry has a density of 540 to 860 kg/m3, so total of 2.2e9 kg, or 500-7000 GBq? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.65.122 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Coal Washing > Slurry+fly ash=Slurry

24.50.151.151 (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Water_pollution_from_coal Coal Processing Coal sludge

Coal sludge, also known as slurry, is the liquid coal waste generated by washing coal. It is typically disposed of at impoundments located near coal mines, but in some cases it is directly injected into abandoned underground mines. Since coal sludge contains toxins, leaks or spills can endanger underground and surface waters.[5] Heavy metals

Coal sludge also contains many heavy metals. Small amounts of heavy metals can be necessary for health, but too much may cause acute or chronic toxicity (poisoning). Many of the heavy metals released in the mining and burning of coal are environmentally and biologically toxic elements, such as lead, mercury, nickel, tin, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic, as well as radio isotopes of thorium and strontium.[6][7][8] Coal Plants

Burning coal produces airborne compounds, known as fly ash and bottom ash (collectively referred to as coal ash), which can contain large quantities of heavy metals that settle or wash out of the atmosphere into oceans, streams, and land.[8][5] The amount of fly ash is going up: in 2006, coal plants in the United States produced almost 72 million tons, up 50 percent since 1993.[9] The large quantities of toxic heavy metals in coal ash include lead, mercury, nickel, tin, cadmium, antimony, and arsenic, as well as radio isotopes of thorium and strontium.[5]

Coal Waste

Many of the heavy metals released in the mining and burning of coal are environmentally and biologically toxic elements, stored in federally unregulated coal waste sites.[8] Sulfur dioxide scrubbers also create coal waste. The flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) process creates a wet solid residue containing calcium sulfite (CaSO3) and calcium sulfate (CaSO4). Often dry material such as fly ash is added to stabilize the sludge for transport and landfill storage.[18]

Coal combustion waste is the nation's second largest waste stream after municipal solid waste.[19] A power plant that operates for 40 years will leave behind 9.6 million tons of toxic waste.[5] According to a New York Times analysis of EPA data, power plants are the nation’s biggest producer of toxic waste, surpassing industries like plastic, paint manufacturing, and chemical plants.[17] It is disposed of in landfills or "surface impoundments," which are lined with compacted clay soil, a plastic sheet, or both. As rain filters through the toxic ash pits year after year, the toxic metals are leached out into the local environment.[20][21]

In October 2009, Appalachian Voices released an analysis of monitoring data from coal waste ponds at 13 coal plants in North Carolina. The study revealed that all of them are contaminating ground water with toxic pollutants, in some cases with over 350 times the allowable levels according to state standards. The contaminants include the toxic metals arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead, which can cause cancer and neurological disorders. The study was based on data submitted by Duke Energy and Progress Energy to state regulators.[22]

Coal washing residue -a before product- has added fly ash-a after burning product- that is called slurry.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090207090819/http://www.epa.gov:80/Region4/kingston/ to http://www.epa.gov/Region4/kingston/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090305234659/http://www.brockovichblog.com:80/2008/12/coal_ash_sludge_muddies_waters.html to http://www.brockovichblog.com/2008/12/coal_ash_sludge_muddies_waters.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090528211536/http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/wireStory?id=6546366 to http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6546366

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090227033120/http://www.cnn.com:80/2008/US/12/26/tennessee.sludge/index.html? to http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/26/tennessee.sludge/index.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/26/tennessee.sludge/index.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528234922/http://wvgazette.com/News/200901140232 to http://wvgazette.com/News/200901140232
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721020014/http://www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/ to http://www.tva.gov/kingston/rca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 14:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I think the prose can be improved in a few location. While some effort has been done to explain jargon, i still find it difficult to read some sentences. The coal-fired power plant, located across the Clinch River from the city of Kingston, uses ponds to dewater the fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, which is then stored in wet form in dredge cells --> This sentence has four commas, which makes it quite difficult to read. I also don't know what a dredge cell is. It is not clear from the text if this is the same as drying cell or retaining pond. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC) cited three other individuals --> what does that mean?  Fixed - removed "cited"; reworded description of event. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC) in-lieu-of-tax: is this a legal term? I assume most people don't understand the french? Was this part of legal case?  Fixed - provided a link to payment in lieu of taxes, which was the procedure used here. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC) This phase accelerated the removal of ash from the river by 75% over original expectations and safely transported it to a permanent, lined and leachate collecting facility in Perry County, Alabama called Arrowhead landfill.: can a phase do transportation? The sentence is a bit too long/too many commas.  Fixed - clarified transportation issue and split into two sentences. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) that the choice of dealing with the spilled coal ash. I don't think they consider the choice OF dealing with the spilled ash as environmental racisms, rather the choise HOW to deal with it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  Fixed - Bneu2013 (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC) The plaintiffs agreed that Jacobs Engineering had failed to keep workers safe from environmental hazards, and had misled them about the dangers of coal ash, mainly by claiming that extra protective equipment, such as masks and protective clothing, was unnecessary. The word agree here is a bit odd. Did they agree among themselves? Or with some other person? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)  Fixed - that sentence is about the ruling, which agreed with the workers' claims. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	lede: The lead should be expanded. Mentioning of the clean-up, a process that I see has taken around 7 years, should be mentioned. Two paragraphs should be sufficient. I think it would be helpful to mention the country in which the spill took place in the first of second sentence. The information about the number of deaths should be included in the lede as well.  Done - If there is any issue with my changes, please let me know. Bneu2013 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Much improved. I don't quite understand the following sentence: uses ponds to dewater the fly ash, a byproduct of coal combustion, which is then stored in ponds. Are there two types of ponds? If so, you might want to change the last bit to "stored in other ponds". If not, you might want to remove the full clause of "which is then stored in ponds". Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC) Comment - I had an issue with that sentence too. I'm still trying to figure out if those are two different types of ponds. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC) layout I find the structure of the article quite vague. the Deepwater horizon oil spill has a good example of a clear structure for an spill. I think that a section with consequences would be quite good (subsections health and environment?). Part of the information under the vague section title 'Details' might be transferred there. You might also want to make a section called: cause of spill. The biggest point for improvement in the response section is that it's too detailed. You can consider using some subsections to make it easier to read, as well as summarizing it. The article reads a lot like "He said, she said". Comment - I have split both the details and response section into subsections, like what was suggested, and have moved some of the existing content to the sections where I believe it is more appropriate. I'm still trying to find more information about the environmental consequences, and will likely split some existing information into a subsection about the environmental impact of the spill. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC) This makes the article way easier to read and assess, thanks :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Two more small points about the layout: It is not clear to me why the paragraph about environmental racism is in the legal action section. If there was concrete legal action, please specify. If not, you might want to move it to cleanup.  Fixed - added info about complaint dismissed by EPA. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC) You have two single-sentence paragraphs in the article, which is discouraged in the MOS. You might want to expand the sentence about fish with the effect on bugs and swallows that the EPA mentions. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Almost compliant. Sources 14, 38, 44, 48 and 56 miss essential information (author/publisher, title, date). Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I've done done a full check on this, but I checked the source after the sentence: ash fill, which was situated 60 feet (18 m) above the ash pond. I don't understand this sentence, and could not find it back in the given source. My (poor) understanding is that pond, landfill and ash fill all refer to the same thing? If not, could the distinction be made clearer? I've asked for somebody to have a bot find archived versions of the sources. Many of them are either dead or are considered unsafe by EU privacy standards and therefore not accessible here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Now that the archiving has been done (yaay), I found 4 statements that are not properly supported from a sample of about 15. This is too high and I would like to request you check other sources as well. Some critics of the EPA's response claim that the choice of how to deal with the spilled coal ash was an act of environmental racism. Source only mentions one person, Robert D. Bullard claiming this. Could you provide an additional source for the plural here? Or make change the text and make clear why Robert D. Bullard is relevant in his own right to appear here.  Fixed - Bneu2013 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC) The coal ash incident is often used in comparison to the Flint water crisis in Flint, Michigan. Again, the source does not support that it is often compared to Flint. It just gives an example of one comparison.  Fixed - removed completely. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC) TVA spokesman Gil Francis Jr. stated "in terms of toxicity, until an analysis comes in, you can't call it toxic." He continued by saying that "it does have some heavy metals within it, but it's not toxic or anything." Quotes not in source given. No source given for 101 times as big as Valdez. I don't see how this precision can be obtained and I do see some (not that reliable source) quoting 100 instead.  Done - provided a source for the volume of oil spilled by Exxon Valdez. The volume of coal ash spilled at Kingston is cited, and if one does the math, they will find that it was about 101 times greater than the volume spilled by Valdez. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC) Computing this number yourself is still an example of WP:OR#Synthesis of published material. When you use the number 101, you imply that this number can be known to 3 significant digits, which I highly doubt. The number 100 is more clearly rounded off, so you don't imply precision you don't have. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC) TVA had reportedly known about the dangers of using wet storage ponds for coal ash since a 1969 spill in Virginia in which coal ash seeped into the Clinch River and killed countless fish.[11] I cannot access the source, but as this implies legal culpability and legal cases have been fought, this sentence might be made more strong (they knew about).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Did that copyright check and apart from the quotes (that have been used a bit too much), nothing came up.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It is not entirely up-to-date. Please go over the article and check whether things have been updated since 2008. For example the Authority would consider switching the Kingston plant over to "dry" byproduct methods --> Has it done so? (If yes, would that mean the lede sentence: which is then stored in wet form in dredge cells, should be in the past tense?)  Fixed - Updated with info. Bneu2013 (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) In the legal action section, it is unclear whether Greenpeace and landowners won their case. Comment - I added info about the court case involving over 800 plaintiffs that found TVA liable for the spill. Although it doesn't explicitly mention every single party involved (for obvious reasons), it appears that Greenpeace, SACE, landowners, and many other environmental advocacy groups were plaintiffs in the case. I don't know if this is adequate enough.Bneu2013 (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The response section goes in unnecessary detail and the structure of the different paragraphs is unclear. One of the paragraphs is too long. It is probably best to decrease the amount of quotes, as this is not a newspaper article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Some small comments. Avoid the quote tremendous for fish loss (can be written down more neutrally), would have cost ratepayers tens of millions: I suspect his is framing? Could part of the costs have come from other parties? I'm thinking lower salaries, insurance, federal funds, savings, selling off property. There might be legal reasons why rate-payers would have to cough up the costs, so not sure. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Fly ash is described as a pollutant. I'm not sure whether that is entirely correct. This source: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-02387-8_3 describes some of its contents as pollutants.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Response from nominator - sorry I've been a little late to respond. I've been a bit busy, but I will start looking at the reviewer's suggestions and making improvements. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • With the review starting months and months after nomination, of course I don't expect you to be able to have a lot of time immediately. Could you indicate how much time you need to fix the issues? 7 days is the default timing to finish a review, and then 7 days for the review to be put on hold, but if you need an extra week (or two), I will grant you that. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Femkemilene- I should be able to have it done in the next 7 days. I have already started. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I'll review the improved sections in more detail as soon as you've finished them (as I've just done with the lede). Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I've finally finished the review. There is quite a lot to do still, with many of the sources not completely checking out. I'll put the article on hold. To summarize, the most important things to do: condense the response section by removing some citations, check a large part of the sources, read through the article to see where updating in necessary (sometimes as simple as putting things in the past tense, sometimes requires new sources). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I've decided to fail the nomination . The article was close to meeting the criteria and I do hope it will get renominated after the last points have been solved and a final check on checking recent events has been done as well. The article has improved a lot, thanks for your hard work! Do consider reviewing two (or one) articles yourself as well. Not only will you help tackle the backlog, you might also learn something from taking this different role in the process. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I strongly apologize, but unusual circumstances arose that did not allow for me to be as active as I expected. I expected to be able to improve the article more. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Real life can be quite hectic unfortunately. I really hope that when time allows, you further improve the article, because I want to see it as a good article and it's not far from that level. You can renominate the article whenever you want; there is no minimum time between nominations. You can tempt me to do the second review as well by reviewing one of two other articles in the GAN page. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Title article

Surprisingly, the title is not one of the good article criteria, hence the discussion here. A better title in my opinion would be Kingston Fossil Plant coal ash spill, similar to: Knox News or USA Today. Even the very precise EPA leaves out the word slurry: EPA news article.

The guidelines for choosing a title are summed up here: Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding on an article title. One of the criteria is naturalness, and I believe that the title is too long to feel natural. In terms of precision, my new proposed title also unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems like the article title was debated endlessly back when the article was first created, and the overly-long title was the compromise. Be sure to review the debate in the section "2008" above before making any name changes. BrineStans (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I wondered this myself, but as BrineStans mentioned, this title appears to have been reached via a consensus. Although I'm not certain at this point, I was under the impression that including "fly" and "slurry" in the title was intended to identify the event from other potential coal ash related disasters. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 15:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• The lede says over 40 casualties, the infobox has 36, pointing to same source. Which is correct? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Fixed - the lead includes the figure at the ten year anniversary of the event, and shouldn't have been changed. I have placed an embed note to ensure that does not happen again. I have replaced the infobox with approximately 40, as that appears to be the current figure. Please let me know if there is still any issue here. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• "An October 2008 inspection report had identified a small leak in the faulty wall, but the report was not finalized" -> add at the time of the spill? Or was it never finilized? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Fixed - determined that the report was not complete at the time of the spill. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• I see the 101 times as big is still in there, which is a crime against significant digits . Could you maybe copy unanswered points from the previous review into this one, and help my RSI. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Femkemilene, I'll look for a source that explicitly verifies this, but the Men's Journal source states that the volume was about 100 times greater than Exxon-Valdez; should I replace it with this instead? Bneu2013 (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

    Yes please! Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

    •  Done - Bneu2013 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Points from previous GA review

• layout I find the structure of the article quite vague. the Deepwater horizon oil spill has a good example of a clear structure for an spill. I think that a section with consequences would be quite good (subsections health and environment?). Part of the information under the vague section title 'Details' might be transferred there. You might also want to make a section called: cause of spill.

• • Comment - fixed the layout; split into multiple sections and moved appropriate content where it belongs. "Event" section is for initial spill and early effects; "Response" section is for initial response. Listed the cause, determined by the report, under "cause" section.

• The biggest point for improvement in the response section is that it's too detailed. You can consider using some subsections to make it easier to read, as well as summarizing it. The article reads a lot like "He said, she said".

• • Condensed section, cut quotes, and split into subsections for this purpose. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• You have two single-sentence paragraphs in the article, which is discouraged in the MOS. You might want to expand the sentence about fish with the effect on bugs and swallows that the EPA mentions.

• • Got rid of the single sentence paragraphs by adding more details, including the effects on wildlife on the initial spill. I'm thinking that the article might be missing some information about the effects on wildlife of the initial spill, however. Not certain about that though. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• ash fill, which was situated 60 feet (18 m) above the ash pond. I don't understand this sentence, and could not find it back in the given source. My (poor) understanding is that pond, landfill and ash fill all refer to the same thing? If not, could the distinction be made clearer?

• • I completely rewrote this sentence in an effort to clarify exactly where the spill took place, the process by which coal ash is transported into the ponds and then dried, and how this relates to where the spill took place.

• TVA had reportedly known about the dangers of using wet storage ponds for coal ash since a 1969 spill in Virginia in which coal ash seeped into the Clinch River and killed countless fish.[11] I cannot access the source, but as this implies legal culpability and legal cases have been fought, this sentence might be made more strong (they knew about).

• • I have expanded this sentence to include more information about TVA's history with coal ash issues. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• The response section goes in unnecessary detail and the structure of the different paragraphs is unclear. One of the paragraphs is too long. It is probably best to decrease the amount of quotes, as this is not a newspaper article.

• • Condensed section, split into two paragraphs, and cut quotes, replacing with summaries. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Avoid the quote tremendous for fish loss (can be written down more neutrally),

• •  Fixed - replaced with neutral tone and cut quote completely. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• would have cost ratepayers tens of millions: I suspect his is framing? Could part of the costs have come from other parties? I'm thinking lower salaries, insurance, federal funds, savings, selling off property. There might be legal reasons why rate-payers would have to cough up the costs, so not sure.

• • Replaced with the more neutral tone that states that TVA had chosen to make small repairs in an effort to reduce costs. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Fly ash is described as a pollutant. I'm not sure whether that is entirely correct. This source: [6] describes some of its contents as pollutants.

• •  Fixed - no longer described as a pollutant; some of its contents are however. I'm wondering, however, if I should include the fact that some of the contents of fly ash are considered pollutants in the "Background" section, however. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Two final points

• add short description/definition of 'in lieu of tax'. As it's a definition, you don't need an extra source for it.
  • Femkemilene - sorry, but I don't know what the issue is here. The source verifies the fact that TVA made these payments. I have slightly modified the sentence to clarify that the lost revenue was caused by the spill. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That works I think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Femkemilene - Ok. Anything else? Bneu2013 (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
        • No, the article looks excellent. I just passed it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks! 08:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• Add (single line?) safety issues in the cleanup paragraph, to 'foreshadow' the mention in the legal action section. Now it comes out of the blue a bit. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done - added sentence in top of first cleanup paragraph about how the workers were not provided with PPE. Bneu2013 (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Map

I tried to make a better version of the map without the crease at File:Kingston Steam Plant - Ash Disposal Area.xcf but it needs some better distortion at the edges to make the maps line up and I don't know how to do it right. — Omegatron (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's still much better than the one displayed in the article. BrineStans (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Vigils and memorial gatherings

Local environmental groups have been holding vigils outside of the TVA buildings on the anniversary of this. Should we consider gathering sources and adding a section for that activity, or is that too far off topic? KJ4IPS (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support that; however, it shouldn't be too extensive. Maybe we should include it in a new section about the greater impact of the event. For example, I'd support a new section that covers the impact the event has had on perceptions of the hazards of coal ash. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lillianm55.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)