What’s In Your Water? A Discussion of Threats To Virginia’s Water Quality March 27-28, 2015...

34
What’s In Your Water? A Discussion of Threats To Virginia’s Water Quality March 27-28, 2015 William and Mary School of Law Dr. John L. Daniels, P.E. Professor and Chair Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering UNC Charlotte

Transcript of What’s In Your Water? A Discussion of Threats To Virginia’s Water Quality March 27-28, 2015...

What’s In Your Water?A Discussion of Threats To Virginia’s Water Quality

March 27- 28, 2015 William and Mary School of Law

Dr. John L. Daniels, P.E.Professor and Chair

Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUNC Charlotte

Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 2:39 PMTo: Daniels, JohnSubject: media query

Here's my question for you or someone you might refer me to: Did Duke violate any principle of civil engineering in expanding the ash basin in question over a corrugated-metal stormwater pipe? The pipeline, when it failed, served as a conduit for ash and wastewater to the river.

From: Daniels, John Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:31 PMSubject: RE: media query Thanks for your note and question. Appropriately designed, constructed, and maintained corrugated metal pipe can pass underneath a variety of infrastructure, including ash ponds.

36” RCP

48” CMP

2010 Proposed Rule

2014 Ruling

2014 NC Coal Ash Management Act

ComparisonsSite Date Mass of

Ash(tons)

Volume of Water(million gallons)

PPLMartins Creek StationDelaware RiverBangor, PA

2005 160,000 100

TVAEmory and Clinch RiversKingston, TN

2008 5,100,000 1,100

Duke EnergyDan River StationDan RiverEden, NC

2014 39,000 27

Coal Combustion Basics

Source: Duke Energy, http://www.dukepower.com/community/learningcenter/generating/coal/coalplants.asp

Coal Combustion Products

Source: USGS, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs076-01/fs076-01.html

Scanning Electron Microscope Images

Source: J. Daniels

Source: J. Daniels

Duke Energy asks for coal ash leaks to continueBy Jim Bradley 4:40 p.m. EDT, Fri March 13, 2015

CHARLOTTE, N.C. —

Environmental groups said Duke Energy and state regulators are attempting to legalize potential toxic leaks from controversial coal ash ponds. New permits for three Charlotte area sites show Duke is requesting permission to allow multiple leaks to continue. Duke Energy's coal ash disaster is well-documented. Last year, a failure at a coal ash pond near the Virginia border sent a toxic sludge of coal ash into the Dan River.  Since then, Duke Energy has agreed to pay a $100 million fine to the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

http://m.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/duke-energy-asks-coal-ash-leaks-continue/nkWZD/

Duke Energy asks for coal ash leaks to continueBy Jim Bradley 4:40 p.m. EDT, Fri March 13, 2015

CHARLOTTE, N.C. —

Environmental groups said Duke Energy and state regulators are attempting to legalize potential toxic leaks from controversial coal ash ponds. New permits for three Charlotte area sites show Duke is requesting permission to allow multiple leaks to continue. Duke Energy's coal ash disaster is well-documented. Last year, a failure at a coal ash pond near the Virginia border sent a toxic sludge of coal ash into the Dan River.  Since then, Duke Energy has agreed to pay a $100 million fine to the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

http://m.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/duke-energy-asks-coal-ash-leaks-continue/nkWZD/

Leachability“Under the regulations subsequently promulgated, a waste is considered “hazardous” and subject to regulation under Subtitle C if it exhibits any one of four characteristics of hazardousness—ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. 40 C.F.R. §§ 261.11(a)(1), 261.20–24 (2012). The characteristic of toxicity is “the leaching of toxic residues into surrounding liquid,” Envtl. Def. Fund, 852 F.2d at 1310, as determined using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (“Leaching Procedure”) set forth in EPA Publication SW-846, 40 C.F.R. § 261.24. 

Disposal of all other solid wastes is regulated under Subtitle D of the Act.” Source: Case 1:12-cv-00523-RBW Document 40 Filed 10/29/13 Page 4 of 35

Not meant to be read…email John if interested in a copy…

14

Data Sources:

-Characterization of Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities – Leaching and Characterization Data, EPA-600/R-09/151 December 2009

-Lindsay, W. L. 1979. Chemical equilibria in soils. John Wiley, as cited in Ground Water Issue, Behavior of Metals in Soils EPA/540/S-92/018

-A Study of the Metal Content of Municipal Solid Waste, Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, NIST (prepared for US DOE), 1998

Solid Phase Concentration Comparisons

Aqueous Phase Concentration Comparisons

Room for Argument

Evaluating trace elements in groundwater

Background concentrations:may exceed standards

Credit: J. Daniels/B. Langley

Typical Leachate DataColumn Leach Test - Cadmium

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pore Volumes

Co

nc

entr

atio

n, u

g/L

1/6/2004 Samples (Low SPLP)

11/12/2003 Samples (High SPLP)

7 Day Composite Samples

GW Standard = 5 ug/L

17

Source: Associated Press. Coal ash, scooped from the Dan River after the Feb. 2 spill

Evaluating Leachability and Transport

Credit: J. Daniels/B. Langley

Numerical Model (MODFLOW):Fate and Transport Sensitivity

AnalysisBoron concentration at compliance boundary

Compliance boundary

Source: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm

Q = ?

C = ?

0

50

100

150

200

2/5/2014 2/6/2014 2/7/2014

Upstream - Dissolved - µg/L

aluminum arsenic iron copper

0

50

100

150

200

250

2/5/2014 2/6/2014 2/7/2014

Downstream - Dissolved - µg/L

aluminum arsenic iron copper

No NC Water Quality standards for dissolved metals

Image Credit: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/dan-river-spill

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2/3/2014 2/4/2014 2/5/2014 2/6/2014 2/7/2014

Upstream - Total - µg/L

aluminum arsenic iron copper

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2/3/2014 2/4/2014 2/5/2014 2/6/2014 2/7/2014

Downstream - Total - µg/L

aluminum arsenic iron copper

Applicable Standard:

Aluminum – 87 µg/L (aquatic)

Iron – 1000 µg/L (aquatic health)

Reported as 16,000 µg/L

0

10

20

30

40

50

2/3/2014 2/4/2014 2/5/2014 2/6/2014 2/7/2014

Upstream - Total - µg/L

aluminum arsenic iron copper

0

10

20

30

40

50

2/3/2014 2/4/2014 2/5/2014 2/6/2014 2/7/2014

Downstream - Total - µg/L

aluminum arsenic iron copper

Applicable Standard:

Arsenic – 10 µg/L (human health)

Copper – 7 µg/L (aquatic health)

Parting CommentsRisk and Reuse

Source

ReceptorPathway

You need all three…

• March 6, 2014: Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway– “take immediate action to eliminate sources of

contamination that cause a concentration of a substance in excess of groundwater quality standards”

• EPA pre-publication CCR Rule:– “EPA believes that solid waste activities

should not be allowed to contaminate underground drinking water sources to exceed established drinking water standards”

Are we encouraging reuse?

Source: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/images/waste_hierarchy_green_400pxw.png

• CAMA Legislative Timelines• EPA CCR Timelines• Citizen Suits

ASTM Standard Guides

Dr. John L. Daniels, P.E.Professor and Chair

Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUNC Charlotte

Energy Production and Infrastructure Center - Room 3250 8700 Phillips Road | Charlotte, NC 28223

Phone: 704-687-1219 | Fax: 704-687-0957 [email protected] | http://coefs.uncc.edu/jodaniel/