Turbidity

 Pure Water Gazette Technical Writer Pure Water Annie Clears Up Turbidity

Turbidity can be thought of as the general cloudiness of water. It is actually a measurement of the degree to which particulate in the water interferes with light transmission. Suspended particles absord and diffuse light.

 High turbidity can be identified without a water test.

A turbidity test uses an instrument that passes light through the water and measures the amount of interference from suspended particles.The turbidity test reports results on an artificial scale using nephelometric units, or ntu. Anything above one ntu is technically an EPA “action level” violation, although the human eye only begins to detect turbidity in water at about 4 ntu. Therefore, water that appears completely clear to the eye can have excessive turbidity with health implications.

Turbidity in groundwater is often from tiny mineral particlses. These can include precipitated iron, clay particles or calcium carbonate precipitation.  In surface water turbidity is more likely suspended organic matter or other sediment.

The level of turbidity can, of course, range from invisible to the eye to highly colored water that is not transparent.   

Turbidity in water is more than an aesthetic issue. It is a frequent indicactor of microbial contamination because microbes can attach themselves to suspended sediment. Turbidity also makes it more difficult to disinfect water with chemicals.  The same is true with UV treatment because suspended particles can shadow microbial contaminants protecting them for the germicidal effect of the UV lamp.

Residential sediment treatment can range from the “sand trap” shown above, which relies on gravity to drop large particles from the water, to extremely tight membrane filters that can screen out sub-micron sized particles.

Treatment for turbidity is mainly by filtration. Sediment filters can be cartridge style, granular beds, or membrane-style. With large particles, simply holding the water in a tank will allow particulate to settle out. In municipal treatment, settling and filtration are often aided by chemicals like alum which promote coagulation and flocculation of small particles to form larger particles that settle or are filtered easily. The very tiniest if particles can be treated by membrane technologies like microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis.

This “microguard” cartridge filters out particulate (as well as bacteria and cysts) down to a very tight 0.15 micron absolute.  

It is important to realize that turbidity in water is not just an aesthetic consideration. While crystal clear water is certainly more appealing to the eye and to the palate, turbidity is also an important health consideration because microbes thrive in unclean water. Even if water appears clear, it is a good idea to test for turbidity and to take high turbidity readings seriously.

When cloudy water clears from the bottom upward as in the picture, the problem is not physical particulate but simply excess air trapped in the water. This sometimes occurs when carbon filters are new.

Commonly used sediment filters:

Simple wound string, spun polypropylene and pleated cartridge filters. These are available in a large range of “tightness” ratings that are stated in “microns.” Cartridge filters range in size from tiny to very large. Probably the most common residential whole house sediment filter is the popular ten-inch “Big Blue.” 

“Spin down” separators that are usually measured by “mesh” size. These have long lasting screens that are cleaned by simple blow down process.

“Sand traps” that allow large particles to drop from the water into a specially designed filter tank.

Backwashing filters that contain specialty media designed to trap sediment. The newer natural zeolite media can filter down to 5 microns.

Pure Water Gazette Numerical Wizard Bee Sharper Zeroes in on Water News from October 2014

B. Sharper Ferrets Out the Facts that Harper’s Misses

The items below appeared in the Pure Water Occasional during the month of October, 2014.

Number of people worldwide who now lack access to improved sanitation facilities — 2.5 billion.

According to the World Bank, the total percentage of diseases in the developing world that are caused by drinking unsafe water — 88%.

Number of people in southern Africa who lack access to basic latrines — 174,000,000.

Children who die annually in southern Africa from diarrhea caused by unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation — 120,000.

Rank of the US in per capita water use worldwide — 6.

Rank of Australia — 19.

Rank of Turkmenistan — 1.

Percentage of Turkmenistan’s land that has become desert since the 1960s– 70%.

Factor by which a citizen of Turkmenistan uses more water than a US citizen — 4.

Factor by which a citizen of Turkmenistan uses more water than a Chinese citizen — 13.

Rank of agriculture among the reasons why Turkmenistan and other Central Asian countries are the world’s top per capita water consumers — #1.

Amount of water required to produce the energy to power a single 60W incandescent light bulb — 3,000 to 6,300 gallons.

Percentage of total US fresh water that is required to cool thermo electric power generation — 39%.

Per capita monthly k Wh usage of Haiti — 2.

Per capita monthly k Wh usage of Iceland — 4, 172.

Percentage of the water treated by municipalities that is actually consumed by people — 1%.

Percentage that is “working water” (water for toilets, lawns, laundry, etc.) — 99%.

Gallons of irrigation water needed to grow one pound of avocados in the United States — 74.1.

To grow one pound of peaches — 42.1.

To grow one pound of lettuce — 5.5.

US per capita avocado production in 1999 — 1.1 lbs.

US per capita avocado production in 2011 — 4.5 lbs.

Percentage of avocado’s consumed in the United States that are imported — 70%.

Estimated number of pieces of plastic found afloat in every square kilometer of ocean — 13,000.

Depth at which a discarded sewing machine was found in the Mediterranean Sea — 4,000 feet.

Percentage of drought-driven water rate increase this year in Wichita Falls, TX — 53%.

Percentage of rate increases projected each year for the next 5 or 6 years in Dallas — 3% to 5%.

Percentage of rate increase projected for San Antonio water/wastewater rates over the next 5 years — $41%.

Estimated percentage of private wells in New Hampshire that have elevated levels of arsenic — 20%.

Annual water use in gallons of one Fresno, CA city councilman due to lawn irrigation “malfunctions” — 1.24 million.

Year of Dr. John Snow’s famous Broad Street Pump Study — 1854.

Rank of drought and water shortage among this week’s top water stories — #1.

Tons of BPA spewed into the atmosphere in 2013 by US companies — 26.

Gallons of water that could be saved annually by putting an “environmental label” on beef products — 76 to 129 billion.

Brain cancer rate increase among girls in a Florida town whose water was contaminated by the radioactive wastes of a defense contractor – 550%.

Ticket price charged by promoters to see “the most polluted mine in Montana” — $2.

Age of Boyan Slat, who has launched a significant project aimed at ridding the oceans of plastics — 20.

Aging, in years, added by drinking a daily 20-ounce soda, according to an American Journal of Public Health study — 4.6.

Year in which status of the British outpost Rockall was downgraded from island to rock — 1997.

Nautical square miles of ocean lost by the United Kingdom because of the downgrade — 60,000.

Factor by which water well drilling has increased in Santa Barbara, CA during the current drought — 3 times.

Percentage of the UK’s public water that is taken from groundwater sources — 35%.

Cost of restoring the Kissimmee River to its near meandering state after it was “straightened” by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — $ 1 billion.

 Tons of London sewage that pollute the Tidal Thames in an average year — 39 million.

Tons of London sewage that polluted the Tidal Thames in 2013 — 55 million.

Years it will take to build the new Thames Tideway Tunnel that will fix the problem — 7.

Estimate number of abandoned mines in the US — 500,000.

Number of these that have been “identified” by the US government — 46,000.

Number of years that mine tailings can leach toxins into water supplies — 100.

Estimated cost to US taxpayers for cleanup of the nation’s abandoned mines — $32 to $72 billion.

Amount that Maryland fines giant agribusiness chicken factories when they submit “incomplete reports” of their activities — $250.

Number of cases of Ebola contracted by drinking water during the current outbreak — 0.

Number of cases of Ebola predicted to be contracted by drinking water during the next decade — 0.

Lost elevation in the water table beneath Stratford, California during the last two years — 100 feet.

Number of times the manure produced in a year on Maryland’s farms would fill Ravens stadium — 2.

Year in which Congress exempted fracking from the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act — 2005.

Number of customer water shutoffs made in Detroit between January and September of 2014 — 27,000.

The EPA allowable for benzene in drinking water — 0.005 mg/L  (5 parts per billion).

Current price of Pure Water Products Model 77 Countertop Filter, “the world’s greatest $77 water filter” — $77.

Price of Model 77 in 1992, 1996, 1999, 2004, and 2013 — $77.

Methane in Well Water: How to Get Rid of It

Gazette Introductory Note: Methane removal from water has become a public concern recently because of spectacular internet videos showing flaming tap water in areas where hydraulic fracturing for petroleum production has caused gas intrusions into water wells. There are a lot of myths about how methane is removed from water.  Here’s a good overview of treatment for methane from the Minnesota Department of Health.

Methane Removal and Treatment

Methane will not be removed by common water treatment devices such as sediment filters, water softeners, or carbon filters. Most removal or treatment techniques involve aeration. A gas shroud, attached to a submersible pump in the well, may provide relief in some circumstances. Fittings that drain back or aerate water into the well have been used, but are not particularly effective, and may cause other problems such as well corrosion or plugging.

  Aeration

Aeration is the process of mixing air into water and venting the gas to the outside atmosphere. Aeration can remove methane, as well as other gasses such as hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg smell).

Treatment devices range from the simple to the complex. The simplest is to use a pressure tank without a bladder or diaphragm, often referred to as a “galvanized” tank. An air release valve, vented to the atmosphere, releases the methane. This system is relatively simple and inexpensive, and does not require a second pump or tank, but is relatively inefficient at treating large volumes of water or removing large quantities of methane.

A more effective, but more complicated, system is to add an aspirator or aerator to the inlet of a water storage tank. An air pump or compressor will speed up the methane removal, but adds expense and maintenance.

Waterfall, diffusion, or mechanical aerators are devices that more effectively mix air with the water, resulting in more rapid and efficient removal, but increased cost and maintenance. Some systems involve a storage/treatment tank system with spray aerators enclosed in the tank. Use of an unpressurized treatment tank will require two pumps and two tanks – a well pump and a re-pressurizing pump, and a treatment tank and a pressure tank. Retention times of several minutes are typically needed to allow release of the methane. Air separators, similar to devices used on hot water heating systems to remove air, have also been used to remove methane.

Vents, air release valves, and other mechanical parts can fail, or freeze if not properly installed and maintained. Systems that use a nonpressurized tank may be subject to airborne contamination of the water supply if not carefully installed and maintained. All systems should be designed to be sanitary, avoid cross connections, and be vented outside.

Water for Coffee

by Hardly Waite

The Pure Water Gazette has already devoted more than a sensible number of words to the subject of the nature of perfect water for making coffee.  See, for example, What kind of water makes the best tasting coffee?  and What is the ideal water for brewing coffee?   But since there is always room for another opinion, here is more advice on coffee brewing, this from Axeon Water’s website.  Axeon is a major supplier of water treatment equipment, especially known for its large reverse osmosis units.  The article is called Getting more out of your coffee.

Americans’ love of coffee dates back to the Boston Tea Party in 1773 when the colonists boycotted tea. The colonists united and vowed to only serve coffee in their homes. Ever since, the American taste for coffee has continued to grow.

Most attention of course is given to the type of coffee bean and where it is grown. After all it is the coffee bean that provides the caffeine. Yet the coffee bean alone does not constitute the flavor of coffee. Remember better than 98% of coffee is water. Water is the solvent responsible for leaching all those flavors and oils out of the coffee bean and into the coffee drink.

Drinking water from the tap contains varying amounts of total dissolved solids (TDS). TDS is composed of a variety of salts and minerals such as sodium chloride (table salt) and hardness (calcium and magnesium). Without controlling the consistency of the TDS, the coffee can swing from very bitter to weak. Too low TDS will result in a very bitter taste while high of TDS will result in a weak taste due to less than sufficient extraction of the coffee bean organics. Generally speaking, 150 ppm is often considered the target TDS level.

The individual salts and minerals of the TDS can affect the flavor of coffee. Chlorides will impart a sweet taste; however, at higher levels the taste turns sour. Sulfates on the other hand accentuate the bitterness. Softening the water by removing the hardness is not necessarily the ideal. Hardness (such as calcium and magnesium) is actually preferable for extracting the organic flavor from the coffee bean. Without the proper amount of mineral hardness, the coffee will be very bitter.

Municipal tap water also contains either chlorine or chloramines as a method of disinfecting the water supply. Chlorine and chloramine alters the taste by imparting medicinal odors.

To perfect the taste of coffee, coffee shops often turn to reverse osmosis filtration to design a water profile that best suits the extraction of flavor from the coffee bean. Brewers opt to blend the permeate water from the reverse osmosis with pretreated water that is bypassed around the reverse osmosis unit. Changing the ratio of this blend allows the coffee brewer the flexibility to modify the total dissolved minerals in the water as needed.

To clarify, what they are suggesting as the way to manufacture perfect water for coffee is to treat the water by reverse osmosis.  This will normally produce water that is way below the ideal 150 ppm Total Dissolved Solids.  To bump the TDS to 150, the product water from the RO unit (permeate) is blended with filtered tap water to arrive at water with the correct dissolved solids level but with chlorine or chloramines removed. This may prove to be way too much trouble for home coffee brewers, but restaurants might go to the trouble to assure a perfect product.  In practical terms, if your local tap water is naturally in the 150 range, you would want to filter it with a good carbon filter (but not reverse osmosis) to remove the disinfectants and other taste/odor issues and use it as it is.  For example, our local tap water comes from a lake and is usually around 180 ppm dissolved solids.  That’s close enough.

 A Bridge Too Far

by Janice Karpersen

Several environmental groups have filed a lawsuit in New York to prevent state officials from using money from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to build a bridge—something they contend has nothing to do with clean water.

The purpose of the CWSRF is to provide low-interest loans for communities to meet Clean Water Act goals. Since it began 25 years ago, the CWSRF has provided more than $100 billion in funding, currently averaging about $5 billion a year for controlling nonpoint-source pollution, protecting drinking water sources, treating wastewater, and other water-related projects. In all it has funded more than 33,000 loans.

Construction work for the Tappan Zee Bridge, the lawsuit says, is not one of those projects. New York State is trying to pay for $511 million in bridge-related work—including dredging, pile driving, and demolition—with CWSRF funds. In September EPA stated that the work to be done with $482 million of the proposed loan, or about 95%, was not an appropriate use of CWSRF money, but the state says EPA’s approval is not needed, according to the suit.

Marc Yaggi, executive director of Waterkeeper Alliance, one of the groups filing the lawsuit, said that allowing the state to use clean water funds for other purposes would set a bad precedent for other states to do the same. The other groups filing the suit are Riverkeeper and Environmental Advocates of New York.

You can read the complete lawsuit here.

Source: Stormwater.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

First Sex Occurred in Water: Now We Know

by Gene Franks

Copulation in progress.  If you’re 18 or older, you can see an animated version of the primitive sex act here.

On October 19, 2014, the prestigious British science journal Nature reported findings by Professor John Long et al of Flinders University which it hailed as “one of the biggest discoveries in the evolutionary history of sexual reproduction.”

Nature  a couple of weeks ago rejected as “too controversial” a paid advertisement from the Dr. Bronner soap company  which presented solid research linking GMO agriculture to excessive use of pesticides, but the  journal did not hesitate to give its hearty endorsement  to conclusions about events that took place 385 million years ago and that might not be completely convincing to everyone.

Professor Long et al. “found that internal fertilisation and copulation appeared in ancient armoured fishes, called placoderms, about 385 million years ago in what is now Scotland.” Long reached this conclusion after stumbling across a single fossil bone in the collections of the University of Technology in Tallinn, Estonia last year.  Long concluded that the bone is a “clasper” or primitive penis as it were.  The discovery, Long says, ” now pushes the origin of copulation back even further down the evolutionary ladder, to the most basal of all jawed animals. Basically it’s the first branch off the evolutionary tree where these reproductive strategies started.”

You can read the full account of Dr. Long’s discovery and see a computer simulation of a 385 million year old placoderm tryst on the Archaeology News Network.

How to Be Eco-Friendly When You’re Dead

by Shannon Palus

Gazette Introductory Note:  We’ve visited the issue of body disposal and water quality before.  See, for example, “How the dead pollute water.”   Also, “Formaldehyde as a Water Contaminant.”   Clearly both burial and cremation have advantages and disadvantages.  The Atlantic article below examines the options in greater detail and introduces such concepts as “green cremation.” –Hardly Waite.

Low Salt

by Nancy Gross

Brackish groundwater: The bad news is that it has higher levels of TDS than potable water, so you can’t just pump it out of the ground to include among drinking water resources. But the good news is that it has a lower concentration of TDS than seawater, which means that treating it is less energy-intensive and more cost-effective.

Nonetheless, the US Department of the Interior explains some cons along with the pros:

Brackish waters can be found in coastal areas (bays and estuaries, where fresh water mixes with salt water), in aquifers (where it is usually referred to as saline water), and in surface waters (salt marshes, for instance, contain brackish water). Brackish water sources produce a number of challenges for use:

* Water salinity allows for a broader range of applicable treatment technologies than seawater desalination

* Water composition can include large concentrations of sparingly soluble carbonate and silica salts that can cause scaling

* The affect of long term pumping of brackish ground water aquifers on fresh groundwater resources is unknown

* Issues of concentrate discharge are related to inland concentrate management

A number of utilities in the West and Southwest are implementing brackish water desalination to augment their water supply. San Antonio Water System is a prominent example. You can read about their brackish desal program, beyond the paragraphs copied below, on the SAWS website:

San Antonio Water System is currently developing a brackish groundwater desalination program in southern Bexar County. Brackish groundwater is a plentiful, previously untapped local source of water that will help diversify San Antonio’s supplies.

SAWS future desalination facility will generate about 12 million gallons of water per day (mgd) or 13,440 acre-feet per year from the Wilcox Aquifer in Phase I. The plant will be located at the existing SAWS Twin Oaks Aquifer Storage & Recovery site.

The well sites will be located on adjacent SAWS property. Phases II and III will be completed in 2021 and 2026 respectively and will deliver a total of more than 30 mgd or 33,600 acre-feet per year. The total capital costs of the program for all three phases, including land acquisition, feasibility, design, construction and SAWS overhead is currently estimated at about $411.4 million. The cost per acre-foot of all three phases of the program is estimated at $1,138.

Source: Water Efficiency.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Maryland poultry farms fined for reporting lapses

Nearly one in five large Maryland chicken farms has been fined recently, state regulators have disclosed, because the growers failed to file information required annually outlining what they did to keep their flocks’ waste from polluting the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.

Since July 1, the Maryland Department of the Environment has issued notices of violation to 104 of the state’s 574 “animal feeding operations.” Those are farms that are regulated like factories because of the large volumes of manure generated by raising 37,500 or more birds at a time.

Of those sent violations notices, 89 were fined $250 each for submitting incomplete reports, according to Jay Apperson, a department spokesman. The other 15 received $500 fines for not reporting anything, he said.

The reports, required once a year, spell out how much waste was generated, how it was stored to keep rainfall from washing it into nearby waterways, and what was ultimately done with it. The waste is often spread on fields to fertilize crops, either on that farm or elsewhere.

The fines represent a new, tougher stance by the state. Until recently, regulators say, they have sought to cajole and work with growers to comply with the paperwork requirements of five-year-old regulations that many farmers bitterly opposed — and still don’t think are warranted.

“This is the first time we’re reaching out in enforcement,” said Hillary Miller, deputy director of MDE’s land management administration. “They really don’t get sent these notices until we’ve tried and tried and tried to get these reports worked out with them.”

The farmers cited had more than a year to catch up, as the citations issued in recent weeks are for failure to submit required information due in March 2013.

Miller said some of the growers’ problems may have stemmed from confusion over a change in reporting requirements that was actually intended to ease their paperwork burden. Officials directed farmers to start reporting on one form information they used to have to submit in two separate filings, she said.

By comparison, in the previous year, five animal-feeding operations were cited for significant violations of state regulations and 34 for minor infractions, according to data on MDE’s web site.

The recent spike in enforcement activity comes as the state moves to renew for another five years its permitting requirements for “animal feeding operations,” the vast majority of them chicken-growing operations on the Eastern Shore.

State officials say they’re proposing mainly minor changes to what regulated farms would have to do, and that the requirements in the new “general discharge permit” are at least as stringent as those now in force.

One proposed change is aimed at easing a backlog in processing growers’ permits, dropping a requirement they submit a “comprehensive nutrient management plan” spelling out waste handling and conservation measures on their farms.  A shortage of consultants qualified to prepare those plans has led to lengthy delays in completing farmers’ permit applications. Under the new state permit, officials say, farmers could instead submit two other plans they have to prepare which contain essentially the same information.

Another change would ease a requirement for the vast majority of growers to make weekly inspections of their manure storage facilities to ensure rainfall and snow melt can’t carry waste into nearby ditches and streams. The small number of farmers with large cattle, dairy or hog herds would still have to make weekly checks of liquid manure impoundments to see that they’re not leaking. But poultry growers with sheds storing “dry” bird litter — manure mixed with wood shavings — would only have to inspect them once a year under the new state rules.

Poultry industry representatives and advocates for farmers have urged the state to drop other requirements, including a new provision allowing regulators to mandate additional runoff control measures if officials decide the existing ones aren’t doing enough to prevent pollution.

“It’s not fair to change the rules during the game,” Bill Satterfield, executive director of Delmarva Poultry Industry Inc., argued in a letter to MDE. He contended for the sake of growers, any changes found later to be needed should be postponed until the next scheduled renewal of the permit in five years.

Growers and industry representatives also are pressing the state to forget about charging permitting fees, arguing that they’re a hardship and unnecessary.

The state’s existing regulations call for growers to pay $250 to $1,200 a year, depending on the size of their operation. In a bid to get farmers to comply with the new permitting requirement five years ago, state officials waived collecting the fees. The new rules still call for fees, and MDE spokesman Apperson said the agency is weighing public comments on whether to collect them this time around.

Colby Ferguson, government relations director for the Maryland Farm Bureau, said growers still think the permits and regulatory oversight are unnecessary. But as long as they don’t have to pay for the extra paperwork, he said, they can basically live with it.

“We’re complying with it, we’re going through the process. It’s working,” said Ferguson. “Having the fees waived makes it more amenable and more digestible.”

Environmental advocates contend the state shouldn’t exempt poultry growers from paying for the costs of overseeing their operations, as permitting fees are routine in almost all other regulated industries. The fees would generate about $400,000 over five years a year, they estimate, money sorely needed by an agency that has seen its overall workload expand without commensurate increases in budget or staff.

Agricultural runoff is the largest single source of nutrient and sediment pollution fouling the bay, environmentalists point out. And animal farms in Maryland produce enough manure in a year to fill Ravens stadium twice, said Samantha Kappalman, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Clean Agriculture Coalition, a collection of environmental groups.

Rena Steinzor, president of the Center for Progressive Reform, argued that MDE is showing favoritism to the poultry industry by not charging fees, when the agency requires some environmental groups to pay to see documents they’re entitled to under the state Public Information Act.

“These are basically groups that represent the average citizen,” she said. “And they’re letting [animal feeding operations], which are businesses, not pay the most nominal of fees, which were authorized by the legislature to support MDE’s work.”

But Horacio Tablada, MDE’s land management administrator, said whatever other budget restraints the agency has, officials have seen that the animal-feeding oversight is adequately funded. State officials say they’re are able to inspect about 20 percent of the regulated farms annually.

Delaware and Virginia do not charge permitting fees for regulating large animal-feeding operations. Pennsylvania does not charge fees under its general permit, either, according to a spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. But for larger operations or those draining into sensitive water ways, there are fees ranging from $200 to $1,500, she said.

Factory raised chickens put out amazing amounts of feces and a good portion of this makes its way into water.

Source: The Baltimore Sun.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

The problem with America’s abandoned mines

by Rachael Bale

Taxpayer-funded efforts to clean up Oregon’s abandoned Formosa Mine, a federal Superfund site, could cost more than $20 million.

A mine plans its death before its birth. The leftover waste from mines is so hazardous that mining companies must figure out what to do with it decades in advance, even before they start digging.

That’s how it works today, at least. But in 1981, when the United States government began requiring mines to have rehabilitation plans, many operators simply up and left instead. The government has identified about 46,000 abandoned mines on public lands alone. Some of them are top-priority Superfund sites.

But most haven’t even been mapped. By some estimates, there are as many as half a million abandoned mines in the U.S. These sites have the potential to contaminate water, pollute soil, kill wildlife and sicken humans, to say nothing of the risks of falling down a hidden mine shaft. (This is a legitimate concern in some areas – in California, the state employs teams that scour the state looking for abandoned mines and plugging them up. There was even a “Dirty Jobs” episode about these folks.)

Last month, heavy rains from Hurricane Odile caused two abandoned mines in Arizona to leak orange and brown sludge, threatening a waterway that runs into Patagonia Lake State Park. With thousands of abandoned mines dotting the American landscape, particularly in the West and Southwest, just how worried should we be?

The problem with tailings

Minerals have to be separated from the rocks once they’re taken out of the ground. That process of separation creates a waste called tailings, a combination of ground-up rock, chemicals and heavy metals. This waste is often stored as a liquid in a pond, though sometimes it is dried and kept in a special building.

Today, a mine’s storage facilities for tailings are one of the most scrutinized parts of its construction plan. If a wall breaks, massive amounts of toxins would be released into the water and soil, causing what is considered an environmental catastrophe. This summer, a tailings pond spill at a mine in British Columbia was compared to an“avalanche” of toxic waste.

Abandoned mines don’t necessarily have the same level of protection around their tailings. Tailings can leach toxins up to 100 years after the mine is abandoned, and older abandoned mines weren’t necessarily as careful with their tailings as mines are today. There are several things about tailings that make them toxic:

Acid: Sulfides in the tailings turn into acid that drains into surface water, along with chemicals used during processing, like cyanide. Acid drainage makes the water more corrosive. Marine habitats become unable to support fish and plant life.

Heavy metals: As the newly created acid leaches, it allows heavy metals to escape. Arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and other metals wash into the soil and water supply. People in turn eat fish and drink water contaminated with heavy metals.

Paying for the cleanup

Basically, the public foots the bill.

Funding can come from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, Clean Water Act grants, watershed programs run by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, state sources and others. No single agency is in charge.

To clean up the estimated 500,000 abandoned mines, taxpayers face a price tag of $32 billion to $72 billion, the Department of the Interior predicted. And that’s just for “hardrock” mines, which require mining that involves separating metals and minerals from ore.

The Superfund program, for example, puts a handful of former mine operators on the hook for part of the costs. To clean up just the 63 top-priority mine sites, the bill could top $7.8 billion. The public would pay about $2.4 billion of that, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Coal mines are treated separately. Current coal mine operators pay into the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program, which then distributes money to states to clean up and rehabilitate abandoned coal mines. So far, it has spent about $7.6 billion.

Uranium mines, too, are treated separately – a select few get Superfund money, but most are handled by the Department of Energy. In 1998, it estimated a cost of about $2.3 billion to clean up tailings sites, an amount that didn’t include the additional costs of cleaning nearby water.

Where are they?

There isn’t a comprehensive list or map of identified abandoned mine sites – there are just too many federal agencies involved. Which agency is in charge depends on the type of mine, its location and the level and type of pollution.

The Bureau of Land Management, for example, takes the lead on abandoned hardrock mines on public lands. Most are in Western states, concentrated in Nevada, Colorado and Arizona. Abandoned uranium mines, on the other hand, are most often on tribal lands, especially in the “Four Corners” of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah.

Even so, cleaning up toxins isn’t the end for abandoned mines. The ultimate goal is to reclaim the land, allowing natural ecosystems to re-establish themselves and erase evidence of the mine almost entirely.

Source: The Center for Investigative Reporting.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement