Summary for Monday March 1st

After we finished tasting fresh to brackish (salt) water, we looked at the water quality implications of As in chicken feed, chicken meat, and chicken excrement. The important concepts from our perspective are: (a) if there is more As in our food then maybe there needs to be less As in our water and (b) As supplements in chicken feed may lead to higher As in water passing through/coming from areas fertilized with chicken waste. We then looked at the results of the Superfund sites where you live homework assignment (including the Hanford Site) and some of the inorganic (toxic metals) that are more commonly found at massively polluted sites such as those that make the NPL. We looked specifically at Cu, Cr, Cd, and Ni. On Wednesday, we will continue with inorganic pollutants, landfills (RCRA), water treatment, and organic pollutants.

I would like for you to read two articles for Friday's class:

Cocaine in surface waters: a new evidence-based tool to monitor community drug abuse by Ettore Zuccato et al. (2005)- a peer-reviewed article from the Journal Environmental Health on the prevalence of cocaine metabolites in the rivers of Northern Italy (.html) (.pdf)

Drugging Our Waters by Elizabeth Royte on the prevalence of prescription drugs and drug metabolites in US waters. (.html) (.pdf)

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

The my maps page has been updated with the locations mentioned in today's lecture.

Midterm Exam and Gradebook on Sakai

I hope that everyone is having a good break. It has been raining all day here in Lex. Your exams have been graded and your midterm grades have been submitted to the registrar. Your collective performances were, for the most part, good. The top performance in the class was a raw 91.6% and there were several "A's" after the scores were adjusted. Midterm grades as submitted to the registrar included one exam (56%), five homework assignments (33%), and six quizzes (11%). Your grades for all of these assessments can be accessed using the gradebook function on Sakai. If there is a discrepancy in your grade on Sakai and from the registrar, go with the Sakai grade as it is more up-to-date.

Summary for Friday February 19th

Today we continued with water quality with a look at the specifics of the hydrogeology behind the Bangladesh As issue and some of the important considerations that need to be addressed during the mitigation of this ongoing crisis. So, the Bangladesh water crisis:

Basic demographics: Bangladesh is a large country (7th most populous in the world) with a very high population density (the highest of the 'real' countries), a very low rate of adult literacy (47.5% = 164/177 world rank), a very low per capita GDP (~$1,500/cap/year), and one of the shortest average lifespans of countries outside of Africa (~62 years).

Water issue 1: Bangladesh still has very high rates of people dying from digestive diseases due largely to the consumption of water that is contaminated with sewer-related bacteria and roto-viruses. This crisis was addressed during the 1960s and 70s by the World Bank and UNICEF with a program that installed millions (8-10) of simply, often hand-pumped, shallow, 'tube' wells.

Water issue 2: The use of groundwater resulted in a 2-3-fold decrease in diarrheal diseases and has saved 10s of millions of lives; however, the uppermost layer of soils (the top 100m or so) in Bangladesh are naturally rich in As. As a result, 28-35 million (17-22%) Bangladeshis drink water that is above 50ppb (the national standard) and 46-57 million (29-37%) Bangladeshis drink water that is above 10ppb (the WHO standard) (numbers from the WHO). If we combine these numbers with our 'acceptable risk' numbers of 1/100 and 1/600, we can anticipate some pretty dire rates of cancer (30 million/100 = 300,000 deaths and 50 million/600 = 83,000 deaths!)

Water issue 2.5: Bangladesh has high rates of As in the soil and in the groundwater that percolates through these soils. The concentration of As in the water, however, is even greater that would be expected given the As content of the soils. This suggests that there are secondary factors that result in a high environmental availability of As (meaning that the water is really good and taking the As from the soil into solution and delivering it to consumers). A recent study out of MIT suggest that water that is artificially high in organic carbon (due to agricultural activities) increases the environmental availability of As. Recent work by the USGS shows that secondary factors such as pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and time also play important roles in affecting As availability.

Water issue 2.75: Mitigation of As contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh requires inexpensive, low-tech, culturally-sensitive, approaches. We discussed a number of factors including: deeper wells, large-scale high-tech treatment plants vs. smaller scale, low-tech filtration mechanisms, education and communication, deeper wells, cultural and practical implications of sharing (gender issues, perceived insularity), and rice consumption. While I mentioned the importance of inexpensive filtration mechanisms, I forgot to mention the importance of inexpensive water quality testing mechanisms. Getting your water tested for As in NH is a mere (subsidized) $15- not so much of a bargain if you live in a country with a per capita that is 3% that of the USA.

One additional thing that I want to emphasize is that while it might be nice and convenient to group different water quality issues into categories (toxic metals, agricultural runoff, organic chemicals, et cetera), each individual incidence of compromised water quality has its own individual set of physical, chemical, and geological characteristics (its own personality, if you will.) Likewise, the mitigation strategy for each incidence of compromised water quality has its own unique requirements, limitations, and complexities. The better we understand the underlying physical (chemical, geologic, hydrologic, anthropogenic) problems and the economic, geographic, and cultural constrains of action, the better we will be at improving water quality for everyone.

The quiz questions were (as I recall from memory):

1. What is the dilemma Bangladesh has concerning H₂O?

Microbial surface water pollution and arsenic groundwater pollution

2. What is the amendment to the Superfund Act?

SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1980)

3. What is the Chemical Symbol for Arsenic?

As

4. What is the percentage of people in the US who get water from private wells?

15%

5. What is the percentage of people in GEOL 150 who get water from private wells?

22%

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

The my maps page has been updated with the locations mentioned in today's lecture.

Summary for Wednesday February 17th

Today marked the beginning of material that will be on the final but not the midterm and a continuation of our water quality discussion. We started off with a look at the nitrogen cycle, nitrogen bioavailability, and the role of nitrogen in sustaining life. Nitrogen is the limiting agent in many (all?) agricultural systems and so we use natural gas and atmospheric nitrogen (N₂) to make synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers which we then apply to crops in order to increase productivity. The synthetic nitrogenous fertilizer that is not absorbed by plants ends up entering surface and groundwater systems and can result in water quality issues. When this bioavailable nitrogen enters natural systems that are nitrogen limited, algal blooms can occur which create hypoxic conditions that can lead to fish kills. The Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay are two locations that are currently experiencing seasonal algal blooms related to nitrogen runoff. Excess bioavailable nitrogen is also responsible for increased rates of eutrophication in surface waters. The human health effects of excess bioavailable nitrogen include decreases oxygen carrying capacity of blood (methemoglobinemia = blue baby syndrome), decreased thyroid gland function, and cancer.

We then spent some time summarizing a recent article in the NY Times (That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy). The two main points of the article are that

the EPA only regulates a small number of the 60,000 chemicals that are used in the USA, and

some of current standards (MCLs) are high enough that you can be drinking water that is unhealthy but does not violate any laws.

Arsenic (As) presents a good example of the second issue posed above. As is a chalcophile (sulfur loving) element that occurs in naturally sulfur-rich rocks. As can also be concentrated anthropogenically through industrial processes and mining (many of the metals that we mine occur as sulfide minerals). The acute toxicity of As has been know for a long time (as little as 100ppm of As is acutely toxic) but more and more research has shown that smaller and smaller doses of As can be unhealthy. In 2001, the the EPA lowered the legal limit for As in drinking water from 50ppb to 10ppb (the new limit did not go into effect until 2006). 50ppb has been linked to rates of cancer at ~1/100. 10ppb has been linked to rates of cancer at ~1/600. Both of these numbers are well below the "acceptable risk" of 1/1 million. Some research even shows negative health effects at 1ppb As. New England, particularly the Seacoast area of New Hampshire is an example of an area with naturally As-rich rocks and there are an estimated 13 million people in this area whose water became illegal with the lowering of the standard from 50 to 10 ppm. Most of the numbers in this paragraph come from the Dartmouth College Toxic Metals Research Program.

Bangladesh is another example of a region with As groundwater problems. Bangladesh is also troubled by surfaces water quality problems and began using groundwater wells a few decades ago- only to discover that their soils are naturally As rich. We will discuss their plight further in class on Friday.

Terms/concepts to know from today's lecture: bioavailability (biologically available), limiting agent (nitrogen limited), eutrophication, acute toxicity, acceptable risk, and ppb.

For lecture on Friday, please read:

Dissolved Arsenic in Bangladesh Drinking Water Is from Human Alteration of Landscape

The abstract for the original paper in Nature Geosciences that is discussed in the article above is here.

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

The midterm is due Friday.

I also want to remind people that there is an outside lecture opportunity tomorrow (Thursday) nigh: "Nothing New about NAFTA: North American Connections and Their Historical Lessons" (aka Ecology of US-Mexico Trade) by Sterling Evans, University of Oklahoma; Thursday February 18, 2010 7:00 PM in Northern Auditorium, Leyburn Library.

Mid-term Exam

Here is some information on your mid-term exam:

Instructions: You may take the exam anytime between class on Wednesday and Friday evening. You may take as long as you like to complete the exam. Calculations on the exam should not require a calculator but you may use one if you wish. When you are ready, come to my office (A223) and pick up an exam, take it and a pencil/pen into room A228 and work until you have completed the exam. Hand your completed exam to me or slide it under my door if I am not in. You may take as long as you wish to finish the exam. You may not discuss the exam, the nature of the exam, or anything about the exam with anyone or in the presence of anyone taking this class who has not already taken the exam.

For each of the multiple choice questions, select only the one best answer unless it is explicitly indicated that there is the potential for the selection of more than one answer. For matching questions, each item will only be used once unless it is explicitly indicated that there is the potential for one or more selections to be used more than once or not a all. The number in the small triangle to the left of each item is the total number of points that can be earned for your response. The blank area on the upper left will be filled in during grading. The student who receives the highest score in the class will be given a grade of 100%. The scores of everyone else will be adjusted using the formula:


There are a total of 62 items and 103 possible points for this exam. The breakdown is as follows:

33% water quality
18% flooding
9% infiltration/runoff
8% precipitation
8% physical hydrology
6% water cycle
4% government
4% Haiti
4% water law
6% other
100% Total

51% Short Answer
31% Multiple choice
11% Matching and ranking
7% Fill in the blank
100% Total

There is mock page for the exam posted on Sakai if you are interested in seeing how a typical page of the test will appear. I guarantee that these questions will not be on the exam but they should show you the type of questions that I am interested in asking. I will post the results of the exam on the grade book feature on Sakai along with all of your homework, quizzes, and your midterm grades as soon as I am able and certainly before Monday at noon.

Summary for Monday February 15th

Today we began with a look at some of the resources that we can use to learn/study water quality both locally and nationally:

1. EPA Superfund sites where you live
2. USGS WaterQualityWatch
3. EPA TRI
4. Maury Service Authority Water Quality Report

We then looked at the results of the survey that you took a few weeks ago regarding the source of your water at home and how these results compare to national averages for the US. Before moving in to a discussion of the contaminants in drinking water that are tested/regulated by the EPA, we looked at a recent study by the USGS that looks at the quality of water from a sampling of private domestic wells that provide water to 15% of Americans (and 22% of the class). You should be familiar with the key findings of this study.
We then moved on to a discussion of the 89 contaminants that the EPA regulates in public drinking water. You should know how the list is broken down (7 microorganisms, 7 disinfectants & disinfection biproducts, 16 inorganic chemicals (mostly toxic 'heavy' metals, and 55 organic chemicals). We then looked briefly at the Contaminant Candidate List 3, "a list of contaminants that are currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations, that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act” the CCL 3 contains 116 candidates contaminants including 104 chemicals or chemical groups (mostly organic compounds) and 12 microbiological contaminants. We finished with a look at the "toxic iceberg" which suggests that the number of proven toxic substances in our environment is small relative to the number of substances that have been partially proven to be toxic or whose toxicity has not yet been or will never be recognized. From this discussion, you should be able to define and discuss: TRI, MCL, MCLG, and human health benchmark.

The end of today's lecture marks the end of the material that will be on the midterm. Material covered in class on Wednesday and Friday (and readings for both days) will not be on the midterm.

For lecture on Wednesday, please read:

That Tap Water Is Legal but May Be Unhealthy by Charles Duhigg (free registration possibly required)

Reactive Nitrogen: The Next Big Pollution Problem by Brandon Keim

The my maps page has been updated with the locations mentioned in today's lecture.

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

There will be a review session for the midterm at 8:00pm Tuesday night in AG14 (our class room).

Summary for Friday February 12th

Today, we looked at the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (aka the Superfund act of 1980). We started with a look at the two events that were largely responsible for spurring the grassroots movements that eventually resulted in passing of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972) and the Clean Water Act (1977)- namely, the 1969 Santa Barbra (CA) oil spill and the 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga River (Cleveland, OH). Likewise, the Superfund Act of 1980 followed public outcry over the higher rates of birth defects and miscarriages for the inhabitants of Love Canal, a community in Niagara, NY that was built over top of a toxic waste dump. You should be able to describe, at a very basic level, how the Superfund program works, the three goals of the Superfund Act and the relative success of the act in achieving these goals. You should also be familiar with the following: SARA (1986), NPL, proposed, final, and deleted sites, and be able to name our nations most prolific polluter.

We then looked through the instructions for your homework for this weekend. I look forward to reading what you all find.

We finished with a look at the Velsicol Chemical Corp. Superfund Site in St. Louis (MI), the closest Superfund site to my home of Deerfield Township. You should be able to describe the Velsicol site with regard to the following:

1. What is your hometown?

Mount Pleasant, MI

2A. What is the name of the Superfund site that is closest to your hometown?

Velsicol Chemical Corp. Superfund Site

2B. What is the location (city and state) of the site?

St. Louis, MI

2C. How many miles away is it?

about 20 miles

2D. What is the Internet address for the main homepage for this site at EPA.gov?

http://www.epa.gov/region5superfund/npl/michigan/MID000722439.htm

3. How would you describe the owner or former owner of this site?

H. Industrial- chemical

4. Briefly describe the type of activities that led to the pollution at this site. For instance- if it is an industrial site, what is/was being manufactured? if it is a mine, what is/was being mined?

The former owner of the site was a chemical manufacture that produced DDT (a biocide) polybrominated biphenyl (PBB) (a fire retardant sold under the name FireMaster), hexabromobenzene (HBB) (another fire retardant), and various other chemicals (particularly a cattle feed additive called NutriMaster)

5. Does the contamination at this site involve a leaking underground storage tank (UST)?

B. No

6. List the contaminant(s) of concern that have been identified at this site.

DDT
chlorobenzene
carbon tetrachloride
trichloroethylene (TCE)
polybrominated biphenyl (PBB)
hexabromobenzene (HBB)
copper
chromium
zinc
magnesium

7. Why are these contaminants dangerous to humans and/or to the environment? (list the contaminant and then list the heath/environmental concerns)

DDT- Diabetes, developmental and reproductive toxicity, possible carcinogen, persistent, bio accumulating, environmental pollutant linked to egg-shell thinning
chlorobenzene- Liver or kidney problems
carbon tetrachloride- Liver problems; increased risk of cancer
trichloroethylene (TCE)- Liver problems; increased risk of cancer
polybrominated biphenyl (PBB)- nausea, abdominal pain, loss of appetite, joint pain, lethargy, skin problems, weight loss, skin disorders, nervous and immune systems effects, liver, kidneys, and thyroid gland dysfunction, early menarche, possible carcinogen
hexabromobenzene (HBB)- Increased liver-to-body weight ratio; increased liver porphyrins (in lab rats)
copper- Short term exposure: Gastrointestinal distress- Long term exposure: Liver or kidney damage
chromium- Allergic dermatitis

8. What are the potential pathways for the contaminants at this site and local water resources? Is the site near a body of surface water? Is is up river or uphill from a populated area?

The site is located in a small town on the Pine River. The river has a no consumption advisory for all species and the spread of contaminants from this site via the river have been well-documented. Groundwater well for the town of St. Louis contain extremely rare chemicals that are only created during the manufacturing of DDT demonstrating the effective travel of contaminants from this site via groundwater as well.

9. What has been done/is being done/has been proposed to "clean up" the site or limit the further spread of the contaminants at this site into local ground or surface water?

An initial round of mitigation involved the construction of an impermeable cap over the site to prevent infiltration of precipitation and a slurry wall to detour the movement of groundwater through the site. After initial mitigation proved to be ineffective, contaminated soil had to be removed from the site. This involved dewatering of the Pine River.

10. What was the/is the estimated clean-up cost associated with this site?

The State of Michigan sued Velsicol and Farm Bureau Services, Inc. for $119 million to cover costs incurred by the state in destroying ~2,000,000 PBB-contaminated farm animals over a five-year period. Estimated cost of clean-up is $400 million

11. Pretend that you have to provide a sound bite for the main stream media around this site. Summarize the information that you have learned in no more that three sentences using language and concepts that could be understood by someone who reads at an 8th grade level.

In 1973, the Velsicol Chemical Corporation shipped several thousand pounds of PBB mislabeled as a nutritional feed additive for livestock that led to the eventual culling of 2 million farm animals over five years. The subsequent investigation into the St. Louis, MI plant revealed massive amounts of pollution including DDT, chlorobenzene, carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene (TCE), polybrominated biphenyl (PBB), hexabromobenzene (HBB), copper, and chromium (levels of DDT in the soil at site measured up to 32,000ppm and 222 tons of DDT were removed from the site). The area has been so effectively polluted that the Pine River downstream from the site has Michigan's only fish consumption advisory for all species; cleanup costs are estimated at $400 million dollars.

OK, so maybe my sentences where a little bit long. Hopefully, you all can do better.

12. Before this assignment, had you heard of this site?

This site is locally famous for the accidental packaging of FireMaster flame retardant in NutriMaster bags which were then distributed throughout the state. This was perhaps the largest livestock culling in US history and this sort of thing tends to get people's attention. It was also the inspiration for the fictional movie Bitter Harvest. Most people, however, do not know about the additional pollution at the site. Even many of the people who drink the polluted municipal well water are unaware of the site.

The my maps page has been updated with the locations mentioned in today's lecture.

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

Homework Assignment 5: Superfund Sites Where You Live

For this assignment, you will use the EPA website Superfund Sites Where You Live to research the nearest site of known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants from the National Priorities List (Superfund site) to your home that affects water quality. This will probably also be the nearest Superfund site of any kind since most (but not all) of the sites involve the contamination of surface and/or ground water. If you are unable to determine exactly which site is most proximal or if you have two or more that are equidistant from your home, you may pick the site that you think will be more interesting to research. Once you have found your site, go to our Sakai website and provide a brief description of the site and answer a few questions.

Some additional resources that may be of some help:

This map of Superfund sites provided by the The National Institutes of Health (NIH)

This list of ~90 contaminants that are monitored in drinking water by the EPA and the "potential health effects from long-term exposure above the maximum contaminant level (MCL)

For our foreign-born students, you may choose from the list of suggested important/infamous sites below. The first to e-mail me with their preference will will get their choice, the second will choose from the remaining four, et cetera. If there is another site that you would like research, you may do so as long as it is not the a site that one of your classmates is researching (see map below)

Love Canal Niagara Falls, NY: Quite possibly the most famous hazardous waste dump in the US (taken)

The Hanford Site Hanford, Washington: Plutonium processing site for the US nuclear arsenal... ...on the banks of the Columbia River.

WELLS G & H Woburn, Massachusetts: The "cancer clusters" which may or may not have been linked to this site were the inspiration for the book and movie, "A Civil Action."

Rocky Mountain Arsenal Commerce City, CO: Chemical weapons plant near Denver

Kim-Stan Landfill Selma, VA: Not terrifically important or infamous but the closest Superfund site to W&L

The questions will be:
1. What is your hometown?

2A. What is the name of the Superfund site that is closest to your hometown?

2B. What is the location (city and state) of the site?

2C. How many miles away is it?

2D. What is the Internet address for the main homepage for this site at EPA.gov?

3. How would you describe the owner or former owner of this site?
A. US federal government- military
B. US federal government- non military
C. State or local government
D. Agricultural
E. Extractive industries- energy: coal-related
F. Extractive industries- energy: petroleum-related
G. Extractive industries- mining (non-energy)
H. Industrial- chemical
I. Industrial- sanitary waste
J. Industrial- toxic waste
K. Industrial- other

4. Briefly describe the type of activities that led to the pollution at this site. For instance- if it is an industrial site, what is/was being manufactured? if it is a mine, what is/was being mined?

5. Does the contamination at this site involve a leaking underground storage tank (UST)?
A. Yes
B. No
C. I could not determine this

6. List the contaminant(s) of concern that have been identified at this site.

7. Why are these contaminants dangerous to humans and/or to the environment? (list the contaminant and then list the heath/environmental concerns)

8. What are the potential pathways for the contaminants at this site and local water resources? Is the site near a body of surface water? Is is up river or uphill from a populated area?

9. What has been done/is being done/has been proposed to "clean up" the site or limit the further spread of the contaminants at this site into local ground or surface water?

10. What was the/is the estimated clean-up cost associated with this site?

11. Pretend that you have to provide a sound bite for the main stream media around this site. Summarize the information that you have learned in no more that three sentences* using language and concepts that could be understood by someone who reads at an 8th grade level.

*normal, non-Victor Hugo length sentences

12. Before this assignment, had you heard of this site?
A. Yes, this site is (in)famous in my hometown; everyone knows about it.
B. Yes, but not many other people where I am from know about it.
C. No, I had not heard of it.

This assignment is due Monday February 15th before class.

Summary for Wednesday February 10th

Today, we started with the basics of water quality with some of the basic parameters of water. With regard to these parameters, you should be able to answer the following:

General- What are solvents and solutes? What is ppm or mg/L- how are these related to %?

pH- What does it mean, how does the scale work what are the appropriate ranges (what do the numbers mean?)

Turbidity- What does it mean and how is it measured?

Hardness- What exactly is dissolved in hard water? What factors control the equilibrium between dissolution and precipitation? How does natural water vary in hardness based on surface vs. ground water, carbonate vs. non-carbonate aquifer, rainy vs. dry season? What are the positives (tastes better, required for brewing) and negatives (damage to infrastructure, health issues, lower effectiveness of lathering soaps) of hard water? At what point (ppm) is water considered "hard?"

Salinity- What is the continuum of salinity for natural water systems (rain - surface water - groundwater - ocean water - evaporitic seas)? At what concentration is water considered "saline?" What is the recommended maximum for for salinity in drinking water? What is the effect of increasing salinity on crop yields? Why is the dead sea so saline? Where would you find the more and less saline places in the Earth's oceans? What are the more abundant ions found in sea water?

TDS- What does TDS stand for? What does TDS measure? What are the two methods for measuring TDS? What is the relationship between TDS and conductivity? What are the advantages of disadvantages of using TDS as a measure of water quality?

Through all of this, we must remember that: 1. All substances are poisonous: there is none which is not a poison. The right does differentiates a poison and a remedy. (Dr. Theophrastus Hohenheim (Paracelsus) 1493-1541 and 2. our specific water quality requirements will be different depending on the use of that water. For instance, water used for transportation or bathing your pet rhinoceros does not necessarily need to as high in quality as the water that you drink.

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

The my maps page has been updated with the locations mentioned in today's lecture.

The Superfund Homework assignment is now up here.

Summary for Monday February 8th

After briefly discussing our homework assignment for the weekend on fish consumption advisories, we looked at the pollution and water quality implications of the combustion and post-combustion stages of the coal to power life cycle. Here are the highlights (or low lights):

Americans used 4119 million megawatts of electricity in 2008 (EIA)

~50% of this came from burning coal (EIA)

The NAS estimates that the burning coal costs the United States about $60 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution. Not only does this dwarf the coal mining industry's annual revenue of $25 billion (an oft-quoted number for which I was unable to find a reliable citation), it amounts to 7 cents per kWh which is actually greater than the utilities price!

In order two reduce the air pollution that results from coal combustion, ~50% of the CFPP in the US have been modified with scrubbers that substantially reduce emission of SO_X, NO_X, fly ash, and PM_2.5 into the air. The trade off is that the process leaves the plant with dirty water that must be treated (to varying degrees) before being released back into the environment.

In order to understand the pollution that is produced from coal combustion, it is useful to know the composition of coal (major elements = C,O,H,N,S with a wide range of many different elements present at minor and trace level). During coal combustion, C and O combine to make CO₂ (and CO), S and O combine to form SO_X, N and O to form NO_X, H and O to form H₂O, et cetera. This means that the major elements, for the most part form gasses that go out into the atmosphere and the residue (called coal ash) is a highly concentrated assemblage of all of the materials that did not burn. Most of this ash is composed of common (and relatively benign) oxides such as SiO₂, Al₂O₃, and Fe₂O₃; however, coal ash also contains toxic heavy metals such as Pb, As, and Hg (though Hg has a very low vaporization temperature and can go up the chimney quite nicely as well). Since coal ash represents about 0.1% of the original volume of pre-combustion coal, these toxic elements are now concentrated 1000 times their original abundances. The high surface area to volume ratio also increases the availability of any toxic material to percolating water and anyone who eats fly ash. Coal ash can be recycled, moved to a landfill or stored on site in large ponds. According to the American Coal Ash Association, 43% of the 130 million tons of coal ash produced in the US is recycled each year into building materials (mostly concrete). For an alternative look and recycled coal ash see here. Ash that is not recycled is commonly stored on site in open air ponds. The impermeable lining of these ponds prevents water from percolating through the ash and into the ground water carrying toxic material with it; however, the lining also affects the volume and mobility of the impounded coal ash. The incident in Kingston, TN that some are calling the worst environmental disaster in US history involved a very large coal ash pond whose dike failed spilling 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash sludge. Preliminary reports from the TVA and the EPA both suggest that the spilled ash sludge contains low levels of many of the toxic elements commonly associated with coal ash. The independent study (.pdf)that we reviewed in class today, however, suggests otherwise.

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

The my maps page has been updated with the locations mentioned in today's lecture.

For Wednesday, please read Chapter 9 in Applied Principle of Hydrology (Chemical Quality of Natural Water).

Homework Assignment 4: Fish Consumption Advisories

As we discussed in class today, water quality assessment usually involves analytical testing of some volume of water taken from a lake, river, well, tap, puddle, et cetera. Another useful way to assess the surface water quality of an area is to look at fish consumption advisories for the rivers and lakes in a region. This came up from the correlation noted in Palmer et al. (2010) that there was a correlation between surface mining activities in WV and surface water quality. Your homework assignment for the weekend is to find the river or lake that is closest to your home (ei your parent's house) and find if there are any fish consumption advisories for it. If not, find the closest body of surface water with a fish consumption advisory. For instance, when I was in college, my "home" was about one half of a mile from the Chippewa River.


There is currently no "eating restrictions" for male adults on this river but female adults and children are advised to only eat suckers (pretty much the only fish in the river) during one meal per week or less.


To complete the assignment, go to Sakai and fill out five short questions.

Summary for Friday February 5th

Today, we looked at water quality issues related to coal mining (particularly MTM/VF) and this is (or isn't) regulated in the US. We began with a discussion of last night's talk on MTM/VF and some of your reactions. I look forward to reading your written summaries for those of you that choose this as one of your five outside lecture opportunities. We then moved on to an analysis of the major conclusions of the recent paper on MTM/VF in Science Magazine (Palmer et al., 2010). We also looked at the basic composition of coal and sources of water pollution during (and after) MTM/VF- namely:

a. the increase in available reaction surface area for semi-toxic* materials (such as coal) due to the disruption (anthropogenic physical weathering)of the geological materials during the mining process. *I am using the admittedly non-scientific term 'semi-toxic' here to describe something that is not malignantly toxic (like pure lead or plutonium) but is not entirely benign (like pure quartz sandstone or puppies).

b. the disruption of natural systems (vegetation, percolation of groundwater) that help to maintain and improve water quality

c. the coal washing process and the slurry ponds that it creates

Following this lecture you should be able to summarize the negative effects of MTM/VF on local and regional water quality, summarize the recent history of how MTM/VF has been regulated at the federal level (CWA, EPA), summarize the sources of water quality issues related to MTM/VF, tell me the five most abundant elements in most coal (C,O,H,N,S), and define water quality.

Information on the hydrophilanthropy project in Haiti that I mentioned can be found here.

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

If you missed class this morning, your absences will be considered excused. The quiz today will be postponed until Monday morning.

There are no additional reading assignments for Monday's class; however, there is a short homework assignment that is due before class on Monday.

Summary for Wednesday February 3rd

Today, we began discussing the water quality implication of using coal to provide 1/2 of the US electricity. We began with a brief introduction to the geology of coal (where does it come from and what conditions are required for formation) and how coal is used to generate electricity. You should be able to describe both of these properties. Before delving into the water quality issues surrounding coal, we discussed the reasons that the use of coal is so prevalent in our energy portfolio:

high EROEI (even higher historically)
low cost per kWh (see comment below)
large reserves (the largest in the world)
inertia (previous investment in infrastructure and political will)

As I mentioned today in lecture, the low cost (cost in this case including only what the consumer pays in their monthly electric bill) of mining and burning coal is a result of the industry effectively externalizing some of their costs. One example of this is the human health costs that are associated with coal combustion which a study by the National Academy of Sciences recently estimated at $60 Billion per year (just related to combustion- not considering additional health costs related to mining). This study is very effectivley summarized here. We then briefly defined mountaintop removal mining with valley fill (MTM/VF) and talked about why it is used.

We also had a look at our energy portfolios (for the Earth, the US, Lex, and W&L.) On campus, we get our electrical utilities are provided by Dominion and, on average, 46% comes from burning coal. We then used the "what's my connection" feature at ilovemountains.org to link our electricity to several mines employing MTM/VF techniques in WV.

We finished up with a lead up to our reading for the day, an article in Science mag on mountaintop mining consequences, by discussing the differences in editorial rigorousness between peer-reviewed scientific literature and articles published in the mainstream press (Newsweek, NY Times, Ring Tum Phi, et cetera).

Friday, we will discuss water quality issues related to MTM/VF as well as issues related to the combustion and post-combustion phases of coal's life cycle. Please read the following:

EPA Makes Announcement on Two Proposed West Virginia Mountaintop Coal Mines looks at a recent EPA ruling on MTM/VF

Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways by Charles Duhigg looks at water quality concerns specific to anti air pollution devices called smokestack 'scrubbers'. (Free registration required)

Tennessee Ash Flood Larger Than Initial Estimate by Shaila Dewan looks at the December 22, 2007 coal (fly) ash spill (the largest in the nation's history). (Free registration required)

The Coal Ash Case a NY Times op-ed discussing issues related to fly ash. (Free registration required)

Do not forget the outside lecture opportunity tomorrow in Reid Hall (Reid Hall is the building that is on your left as you walk from the library to the commons building.)

Slides shown in lecture today have been posted as a .pdf to Sakai.

The my maps page has been updated with the locations mentioned in today's lecture.

Summary for Monday February 1st

Following our homework assignment over the weekend and our discussion at the beginning of class, you should now have a firm concept of recurrence intervals, how they are calculated, and interpreted. You should also be able to discuss local (Lex area) events in the context of RI. After our discussion of the "Great Flood of 1889", you should be able discuss the specific factors that led to the severity of this 'natural' disaster. These include: the nature of the watershed (size, average slope), the distribution of infrastructure in Johnstown, the nature of the storm, the size of the reservoir, the nature of the dam failure, the (lack of) warning, the role of railroad viaducts up and down river of downtown area, and the fateful location of the Cambria Iron Works. You should also be able to discuss the aftermath of this disaster and how its history effects on disaster relief and legal liability. Below, there is a modern terrain (topographic) map of the area where the South Fork Dam used to be. Notice that you can still see the remnants of the ramparts.


In preparation for a highly recommended outside 'lecture' opportunity coming up this Thursday evening, we will begin discussing the use of coal as one of the major sources of electricity production around the world and particularly in the US and how this affects water quality and, in some cases, even physical hydrology. For Wednesday, please come to class having read/watched the following:

A brief primer from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that defines mountain top mining and valley fill

A recent article in Science Magazine summarizing peer-reviewed scientific literature on the consequences of mountain mining. HTML version .pdf version

A 6:41 video clip of from the Cobert Report linked here from the Outside Magazine blog with an interview with Dr. Margaret Palmer, the lead author of the paper above. Once again, if you are unfamiliar with Stephen Cobert, The Cobert Report, or The Cobert Nation, please read this before watching the video (you probably do not need to read the entire entry).

PowerPoint slides shown in lecture today are now available as a .pdf on Sakai.

The my maps page has been updated with the locations mentioned in today's lecture.