We had a story in this morning’s print edition that was a bit of a spin-off from yesterday’s Coal Tattoo post about a petition seeking a federal takeover of Kentucky’s program to regulate water pollution from coal mining.
The story detailed part of the petition citing previously unreleased U.S. EPA data showing high levels of toxicity in water downstream from mining operations in Kentucky and West Virginia. A copy of the report the story is based on is posted here.
Some readers may recall that U.S. EPA had recently backed off announcing a plan that would have required more of this type of special toxicity testing by mining operators across the region.
Kentucky state officials declined to comment when I contacted them yesterday, but my friend Jim Bruggers at the Courier-Journal in Louisville had a story on this EPA takeover petition today, that included some comments from them:
State officials on Monday said they had not seen the petition, nor had they seen the analysis of the EPA water sampling. But they said they are moving to try to meet new EPA demands to reduce water pollution from surface mining.
But R. Bruce Scott, commissioner of the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, also acknowledged “severe funding concerns” that have left his agency struggling to meet its obligations. Division of Water, which oversees the pollution discharge program, has lost more than 50 positions in recent years, dropping from more than 300 to about 250, he said.
And, Jim included this in his story:
It’s unlikely EPA would take over the program. The agency has never revoked a state’s delegated authority under the Clean Water Act.
Louisville environmental attorney Tom FitzGerald, who was not involved in filing the petition, said EPA would be more likely to try to work with Kentucky to improve any shortcomings, including the funding problem.
“These folks are trying to do their jobs,” he said. “They just don’t have the resources.”
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
Whoa.
The testing results from streams are one thing and the testing results from the NPDES permits of the coal mining operations are another.
Yes, there is very likely a direct correlation, but that has to be shown.
Also, many large areas in WV, KY and other states have been extensively surface mined decades ago. What are the test results of streams from those areas?
I’m not agruing for or against the mining companies, but there are some basic issues that even a fifth grader would raise which should be address.
There needs to be devil’s advocates in this stuff.
Bob,
Did you read the report that the story and my blog post were based on?
They did both kinds of samples — my story referred to the sampling down “instream” downstream from the mining sites, but there was also testing of the discharge. The Ph.D. who did the report explained the methods:
“For seventeen of these sites water samples were instream (receiving) water samples. Three sites represented discharge (or effluent) water samples.
“Site selection criteria included: 1) the site was located just downstream of at coal mining operations; 2) no intervening pollution sources could be identified by the EPA; and 3) conductivity levels of the waters at the site of collection were greater than 1,000 microsiemens per cm.”
Ken.
Water flees. WATER FLEES! we are spending money on a study that is concerned about water flees. What exactly are water flees. Does this mean that when I go and buy Advantx for my dog I am going to have to submit to a study by the EPA to see if it damages the flees. In the words of the gazettes’ editoral page. Good Grief
Scott water fleas are not fleas and they are routinely used as a model organism in toxicity studies. If it kills water fleas, it will kill other things. Perhaps you can save your grief for other things. This is solid science.
Scott14,
Please … no need to all-Caps. That’s yelling, and yelling isn’t allowed on Coal Tattoo. Discuss this reasonably and politely or please find another blog to take part in.
The Kentucky Division of Water has an interesting FAQ item on its Web site, http://www.water.ky.gov/permitting/wastewaterpermitting/wet/FAQs.htm regarding this issue.
Why are water fleas and fathead minnows used as the test organisms for WET?
The species Ceriodaphnia dubia belongs to a group of freshwater microcrustaceans commonly referred to as water fleas. These invertebrates are a major component of the freshwater zooplankton found in lakes, streams, ponds and rivers throughout North America. The selection of Ceriodaphnia for toxicity testing is appropriate for a number of reasons:
* They are broadly distributed in fresh water and are present throughout a wide range of habitat.
* They are an important link in aquatic food chains and are a significant source of food for small fish.
* They have a short life cycle and are easy to culture in the laboratory.
* They are sensitive to a broad range of aquatic contaminants.
* Their small size requires small volumes of test water leading to ease of sampling.
Fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, belong to the fish family Cyprinidae, or carps and minnows, the dominant freshwater family in terms of number of species. Fathead minnows are native to North America and thrive in ponds, lakes, ditches and slow muddy streams. They are easy to culture in the laboratory, adapting well to the dry commercial fish food and brine shrimp necessary for culturing in the laboratory.
These species have been used for acute and chronic tests for many years. Their life cycles allow for tests which run from two to seven days, thus reducing testing costs and sample volumes considerably.
Perhaps that answers your question.
Ken.
Ken,
An interesting report and story. I’m not sure you would have the answers but I have a question or two. I read that the criteria for the epa data were 1) the site be located downstream of coal mining 2)there be no intervening pollution sources and 3) conductivity was greater than 1000. Does this mean that there were sources that met the first two criteria, but not the third? If so, why would these samples be excluded? It would also be interesting to see attribution of the type of mining near these sites. I had at first assumed it was just talking surface mining but on second inspection it only says mining.
A couple of quick observations – despite similar conductivities, magnesium, and sulfate levels, all the West Virginia samples were significantly better than the Kentucky samples, with 25% of WV samples being within the EPA recommended guideline and another sample just missing the cut. It also would have been interesting to know the toxicity of samples taken from sites not impacted by mining for comparison.
Personally I found this report interesting – especially since I have heard of EPA advocating a conductivity of 500 as a limit below valley fills. It would appear that conductivities quite a bit higher than that are not necessarily above EPA suggested toxicity limits.
AFC
AFC,
You may be right that I can’t answer your questions … but I’m not sure I understand them. I’ll give it a shot, though …
You seem to be wondering if there were samples taken from sites that then did not meet the criteria listed (1, 2 and 3) and that those then weren’t included in the data EPA provided under FOIA that was examined for this report.
I don’t believe that’s the case … I think what the report says is that EPA took samples from 20 sites — 17 from in-stream and 3 from discharge points. The 20 sites were selected for sampling because they all met all three of those criteria.
So, I don’t believe any of sites were excluded (Well, except that they obviously didn’t test every mining site in the two states and in that way some sites were “excluded”). I could be wrong, and I’ll check on this tomorrow and report back what I find out.
If that’s not the point of your first question, please explain and I’ll try to answer or if I don’t know the answer try to find out.
I see your point about the comparison between the KY and WV numbers, and I hope to report this story out some more and try to understand the reasons for those differences.
For whatever it’s worth, I’ve heard of EPA looking at even tighter numbers than 500 for conductivity (assuming you mean conductivity, and not TDS … I believe WVDEP kind of likes the 500 number for TDS, but that’s a different matter).
Does that help, or have I further confused things?
Ken.
yes, my question was did they sample sites below mining with conductivity less than 1000 and exclude them for that reason.
Also I would still be interested to know if these were all surface mining-valley fill sites.
It would also be helpful to know what is different about the four sites that met or almost met the suggested guideline.
Thanks
AFC
OK … my understanding is that they chose the sampling locations based on them meeting all three requirements, and did not sample others and then exclude them from the dataset.
I will try to provide some additional information on the 20 sites. That may provide some answer to what is different about the four the met or almost met the guideline.
It’s probably important to note — as I tried to in my print story — that these were one-site samples. More frequent study would be needed to provide more accurate and reliable information — longer-term monitoring might provide results that go either way, I would think, especially for those sites that were close to the guideline.
Ken.
Sorry to be so pessimistic, but I doubt this data will have any lasting substantial effect on MTR permitting. Randy Huffman and Joe Manchin will go on ignoring it like they have all the previous science. EPA will toss it onto the mounds of existing data that they already have and approve more valley fill/MTR permits so they can study the water for a few more years. By then they’ll have Sarah Palin in office and they can go back to doing nothing.
Ken (in response to your reply to my earlier posting),
You also reported:
Mitchelmore said the EPA data she analyzed contained only a “snapshot” of water quality, and that more frequent testing would provide better detail about toxicity.
Also, she said, EPA tested the water’s impact on only one species of bug — water fleas — rather than by using the least pollution-tolerant of three difference species of aquatic life, as recommended by EPA’s own guidelines.
Bottomline: There’s not yet enough known to “hang your hat on.”
For sure, more needs to be done and, for sure, more should have been done before now.
As all regulators well know:
Be careful what you look for because then you have to be able to deal with what you find.
I’m saddened to see that our watersheds have been badly polluted by surface mining. Am I to believe that one can no longer find abundant fishing in the many pools that one may find in the Elk river from Charleston all the way to Sharp’s Knob, in Pocahontas county?