After a recent spill at a British Columbia marine coal export terminal, the general manager was quoted in a local newspaper saying:
There’s a lot of misinformation around coal. Coal is a naturally-occurring mineral. It is not toxic.
Leaving aside his non sequitur—plenty of naturally-occurring minerals are toxic—he’s right that coal is subject to a lot of misinformation. There is a lot we should know, but don’t, about coal. For example, we don’t know nearly enough about how coal and coal dust near terminals can alter freshwater and marine environments.
There’s no doubt that coal often contains a range of nasty pollutants, including uranium, thorium, arsenic, mercury, lead, and other elements that are toxic at low concentrations. But it’s also believed to be true that most of those substances do not enter the environment, at least not in large quantities, until the coal is mined, burned, or otherwise tampered with.
Despite the fact that the global coal trade moves somewhere in the range of a billion tons of coal on the oceans each year, there has been very little research into the effects of coal and coal dust on waterways and the ecosystems they support. As the Northwest considers adding as much as 140 million tons of coal export capacity on rivers and coasts that are home to sensitive and endangered species, it is a question that demands rigorous inquiry. What follows is our attempt to summarize the most germane findings from published scientific research.
In recent years, scientists have studied contamination resulting from a coal ship that sank in 1891 near Victoria, British Columbia. Studies in 2009 and 2012, for instance, indicated that the sunken vessel remains to this day a source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and other pollutants, but that their contribution is smaller and less harmful than Victoria’s (notoriously bad) sewage outfall and other man-made sources.
Other studies of PAH contamination from coal have been similarly inconclusive, mainly owing to a lack of adequate investigation. In a 2009 literature review, researchers at the University of Vienna observed that PAHs from unburnt coal may be an important source of aquatic contamination, but they concluded that the issue has “not been well studied” and that “the data is presently insufficient” to determine whether PAHs from coal pose a severe risk for humans or bottom-dwelling animals.
Apart from the presence of pollutants like PAHs in coal, the simple presence of coal dust has been shown to cause ecological harm. In South Africa, for example, a 2004 study found that coal dust from the Richards Bay Coal Terminal harms local mangrove trees and related ecosystems by impairing the ability of the trees to photosynthesize. The researchers noted:
…[coal] dust on the undersurface of leaves is not removed by wind, rain, or even physical washing. The undersurface of the leaves, as well as the rough surfaces of twigs, branches and trunk, tend to accumulate dust and appear black.
In 2006, here in the Northwest, Ryan Johnson and Marc Bustin of the University of British Columbia evaluated 22 years of coal dust dispersal around the Westshore Coal Terminal, located just north of the US border. They found widespread coal dust on the surface of the water near the terminal, observing a film of fine coal particles floating on the water 200 meters east of the vessel loading dock, even when no coal loading was in progress and no ship was docked. They pointed out that ordinary tidal currents could disperse the coal particles 2.5 miles from the coal loading facility, and potentially over 56 miles under extreme conditions.
On the sea floor, Johnson and Bustin were able to document a steady accretion of coal dust. They found that coal concentrations in marine sediments effectively doubled in the period covered by their analysis, increasing from a mean concentration of 1.8 percent in 1977 to 3.6 percent in 1999. Concentrations in the immediate area of the coal terminal were as high as 11.9 percent in the later samples, with quantifiable concentrations 1.5 miles away.
All of which, they conclude, could harm the flora and fauna living on the sea bottom. Oxidizing coal particles reduce the oxygen available for clams, mussels, barnacles, and crab larvae, with damage reverberating up the food chain. In fact, the bottom-dwelling invertebrates affected by coal dust make up a large share of the seasonal food for salmon and herring. (In fairness, however, the researchers also noted that low oxygen conditions deriving from coal dust would likely only occur within 300 meters of the terminal, and they claim that sea creatures in that area are more likely to be affected by physical changes to their environment, such as by dredging, than by oxygen depletion.)
More illustratively, Johnson and Bustin point out that some crabs from the Roberts Bank area, where the coal terminal is located, have been reported to have a “darker coal-coloration” and that local fisherman “find the darker color more difficult to market.” Presumably the darker coloration results from coal dust staining the shells of crab near the terminal or perhaps from adaptation to a darkening of the sea floor from coal dust deposits.
By far the most comprehensive scientific study of coal dust in the marine environment is Michael J. Ahrens and Donald J. Morrisey’s 2005 literature review of the risks of unburnt coal in the marine environment. Although they highlight the potential dangers of coal to the marine environment, they also emphasize how inadequately the issue has been studied:
…it was surprising that there was relatively little information on the bioavailability of contaminants from coal, or on the biological effects at the levels of organisms, populations or assemblages directly related to coal, either in the laboratory or field. This lack of information on the ecological effects of unburnt coal was unexpected in view of the common occurrence of coal in the marine environment…
Unexpected, and potentially problematic for regions like the Northwest that are considering very large expansions in coal infrastructure in sensitive aquatic areas.
Ahrens and Morrisey were able to identify several studies that examined the effects of coal dust pollution on fish and shellfish. Unfortunately, most of the studies are old, poorly designed, or inconclusive. For example, a 1963 study found that coal washery solids in relatively low concentrations reduced the growth rate of exposed trout. An even older study from the late 1930s linked fish mortality to the irritation caused by coal particles entering a freshwater stream. And a 1979 study by an EPA researcher found that to PAH contamination from coal reduced the spawning success of fathead minnows from 90 percent to 36 percent.
Perhaps most worrisome for the Northwest, a 1997 study by government researchers in Canada found that coal dust altered genetic expression in juvenile Chinook salmon. Although the consequences could be very serious, the study’s authors state that “the physiological consequences of this are presently unclear.” (In a concerning aside, the authors noted, based on earlier research, that “surfactants,” the chemical adhesives commonly used to reduce coal dust on trains, can boost the ability of coal pollutants to enter the environment, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources raises similar concerns about surfactants.) We were not able to find any follow-up analysis; however, PAHs have been linked to growth impairment and reproductive effects on Chinook.
Also of particular interest to the Northwest, a 1977 study by the Canadian Fisheries and Marine Service (cited by Ahrens and Morrisey) apparently found coal particles accumulating in the gills of crabs near BC’s Westshore Coal Terminal, though the biological effect on the crabs was unclear. A 1981 study of Dungeness crab by the Canadian government found no measurable effect of coal particles after 21 days of exposure versus crabs in a clean tank, but Ahrens and Morrisey caution that the study was poorly designed. Again, we were not able to find any subsequent examination of crab populations.
A 1987 study of eastern oysters found no increased mortality after exposure to coal dust, but Ahrens and Morrissey note that the study may have included “major bias” owing to very high background levels of PAHs, which could have swamped the effects of PAH concentrations from coal particles in the experiment. Once again, we were unable to locate any further study of coal’s effect on shellfish, though subsequent studies have found that PAHs affect the growth of mussels.
So there is reason to be concerned that pollution from unburnt coal can harm fish and shellfish. Unfortunately, the subject is marked most prominently by a lack of recent scientific examination. As Ahrens and Morrissey point out, however, coal may pose a less severe chemical hazard in the marine environment than a physical one. They note that coal has “well documented” physical effects similar to other suspended or deposited sediments. It abrades, smothers, dims light, and clogs both breathing and feeding organs. They also observe that, “it is often difficult, if not impossible, to separate toxic effects from physically induced stress.”
Suspended solids are problematic because they can kill the eggs and larvae of fish and invertebrates on the sea floor (though research to this effect has not been conducted specifically with suspended coal.) For example, a 1998 study in Southeast Asia showed that accumulating silt reduces the number and diversity of species in sea grass ecosystems. Ahrens and Morrisey assume that the deposition of fine coal particulates would have similar effects. Plus, reduced water clarity from sediments can make it harder for visual predators like fish to find food, according to a 2001 study. Just so, a 1995 study of coal waste dumped off the coast of England (where coal particle contamination was similar to that near BC’s Westshore terminal) found a reduction in the number and diversity of marine creatures.
Find this article interesting? Support more research like this with a gift!
Most scientific studies appear to find that the major threat posed by coal dust to water bodies may be physical, not from toxins in the water. Ahrens and Morrissey, however, emphasize that the issue has not been examined carefully, and there is some solid scientific basis for concern about chemical pollution deriving from coal. For example, one study in Canada found that coal in the water can be a source of acidity, salinity, trace metals, hydrocarbons, chemical oxygen demand and, potentially, macronutrients. In fact, Washington’s Department of Natural Resources says that materials in coal can react with seawater to produce “localized ocean acidification.” All of these factors pose potential hazards to aquatic organisms, such as by increasing the risk of invasive species taking hold, as a 1996 study found.
In 1978, US EPA researchers believed that runoff concentrations from the coal piles they evaluated were far below thresholds that would stress aquatic organisms. Yet Ahrens and Morrissey found in their 2005 review that acidic runoff from coal piles is a common problem with storage and handling facilities, particularly with high sulfur coal. In freshwater streams, coal runoff can contribute to reduced diversity of aquatic creatures, according to a 1985 study in Maryland, and reduced numbers of them, according to a 1980 study in Wales.
Moreover, Ahrens and Morrissey point out that the mineral salts in coal oxidize in water, which means that coal pile runoff may also harm aquatic organisms by raising salinity levels in freshwater environments. (Increased salinity is, of course, less problematic in marine settings because seawater is naturally salty.)
Coal can also increase the level of macronutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. Most nitrogen in coal is released only upon heating, but Ahrens and Morrisey point out that the issue has not been well studied. A 1996 study of Spanish coals found that “little phosphorus was mobilised by water.” On the other hand, a 2002 study of Australian coals found that 60 percent of the phosphorus content could leach into the surrounding environment.
While ash from burning coal can be dangerously radioactive, Ahrens and Morrissey conclude that the radioactive elements in unburnt coal, including uranium and thorium and other isotopes, do not likely pose an environmental threat. This is apparently because radioactive elements in coal are generally of a similar order of magnitude as that in soil or shale.
At the same time, coal can release heavy metals, though the risk varies greatly by the type and purity of the coal. Yet Ahrens and Morrisey found that for nearly every metal analyzed, there was a coal leachate that exceeded international water quality guidelines. For example, some metals in leachate samples from low-sulfur western US coals exceeded the Canadian water quality guidelines for protecting aquatic life. In a 2004 study in Israel, researchers found that snails in the Mediterranean near an Israeli power plant were harmed by the presence of coal in the water, perhaps owing to elevated levels of cadmium.
The Northwest is considering building new export terminals that could ship as much coal as the rest of the United State combined. Yet the region is in the dark when it comes to understanding the risks of coal on sensitive ecosystems and endangered species. Scientific studies raise a variety of concerns, but the most comprehensive reviews also suggest that the core issues have not been well-studied and that the aquatic risks of coal are poorly understood.
It seems critical to us that the region thoroughly study the potential hazards—both chemical and physical—of large-scale coal shipments to aquatic systems. That means Northwest decision-makers should demand robust scientific inquiry into the risks of coal-based pollution in the Salish Sea and Columbia River, where the coal industry has proposed to locate operations.
David Kershner, a Sightline fellow, lives on one of the San Juan Islands.
Thanks for this great round-up.
One would hope the precaution principle – “don’t f* with what you don’t understand” would apply.
On a larger scale, leading world scientists are warning that the cumulative overall amount of environment impact of human development around the world is approaching a critical level, at which the inherent resiliency of natural ecosystems breaks down suddenly.
Approaching a State Shift in Earth’s Biosphere
Atmospheric CO2 is only one of several dimensions we’ve pushed to the breaking point.
One would hope that plan to increase global coal shipping by an additional 10% or more would trigger this larger scale of analysis.
Thank for putting this together. Many of us have argued that water quality was at risk from coal dust and put elements of this story together but it is great to see it put all in one place. In oxygen poor and chemically vulnerable areas like water columns materials that oxidize and create other challenges for freshwater and marine organisms already struggling with a myriad of other issues including fossil fuel driven acidification any little bit more become all the worse. Great job and thanks for all your work.
Fantastic piece of work. Thank you for this effort.
The proposal to haul through the Columbia Basin – every single train and/or barge would traverse the Basin, is a huge red flag with respect to waterways. One of the largest issues with coal is, as pointed out above, coal dust. That dust would be exactly what would be expelled into winter-time inversions in the Basin.
There’s both simple physics and chemistry involved here. The blowing dust exposes a much greater surface area of the transported coal to the air. You have all those dispersed particles instead of a big pile of coal. That’s the physics. All that surface area then becomes fodder for chemical reactions. That’s where chemistry happens, at the interface between phases: solids and air, solids and water, air, solids, and water.
None of this has been widely explored because it is so very difficult to model. The crucial element, for the Basin, is that the mechanism for pulling suspended coal dust out of the air is well understood. The first precipitation event will scavenge the particles – literally pull them out of the air – and into the waterways. In the Columbia Basin, all those waterways lead to one place and one place only, the Columbia River itself. That’s an enormous problem and one that needs to be discussed.
Excellent work, David,
Seems that the relevant scientific research yet to be conducted — to address the issue facing the Pac NW — is on the specific effects of PRB coal on marine and freshwater environments.
Your website is a wealth of information to us as we are in the middle of fighting Kinder Morgan from trucking coal on and off our island from our small port. We all moved here because this is a beautiful tourist island. We don’t want our island to turn into a dirty industrial island. Thank you for all of your information on Kinder Morgan.
very interesting.. I would like to ask about the cited references
Coal seam gas;; Environmental health impact;; Shale gas;; Strength. We are closely monitoring the Trump administration—and fighting back whenever science is attacked, undermined, or disregarded. Adverse impacts to the environment are another significant cost. Those represent the direct costs of fossil fuels; money paid out of pocket for energy from coal, natural gas, and oil. The National Academy of Sciences assessed the costs of SO2, NOx, and . Department of Environmental Quality Assistant Secretary Tom. Institute of Soil, Water and Evironmental Sciences, Agricultural Research . The company has been supplying affected residents with bottled water in order, it says, . Air and Radiation Management; Land Management; Science Services; and Water Management. Extraction processes can generate air and water pollution, and harm local communities. Interventions at the level of the state of the environment would include air . Toxic chemicals in water can affect unborn or young children by crossing the. We Need Your Support to Make Change Happen We can shift our nation away from dirty fossil fuels and toward cleaner, renewable sources of power—but not without you. SO2, NOx, and. This paper is a review of the strength of evidence in scientific reporting. Irrigation water quality, soil amendment, and crop effects on sodium leaching. Thus, a chapter on air and water pollution control links with chapters. But those expenses. Your generous support helps. Sciences, tallied the economic, health and environmental costs associated with . March 20. Environmental_impacts_of_coal. State income from coal severance taxes added about $458 million to coal’s. State concerns with air quality and the effects of radiation were evident. Burden and Strategies for Control – Disease. Shale gas;; Strength. Soil water salinity can affect soil physical properties by causing fine particles to bind. We compared age-adjusted mortality. Steinzor et. Outdoor air pollution is caused mainly by the combustion of petroleum products or coal. Mining Division began as the Bureau of Mines when the. In addition to atmospheric pollution, coal burning produces hundreds. Services; and Water Management. State officials sometimes place no limits on water discharges of arsenic. Ma Jun, Director of the Institute for Public and. State officials had discovered vanadium in the Graham’s well water at. Activists have been outraged by a massive coal ash spill at Duke Energy’s. Soil Physical Properties. In 1876, the Coal Mining Division began as the Bureau of Mines when the . OILS AREN’T CREATED EQUAL The climate implications of using oil depend on where it comes from. Agricultural Research. The costs of coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels aren’t always. Water pollution has increased over the last three decades, penetrating. Assistant Secretary Tom. Yet the region is in the dark when it comes to understanding the risks of coal on sensitive ecosystems and endangered species. View the graphic. Tibetan Plateau, which is affecting the Yangtze, Mekong and Indus Rivers. Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry. Detrimental changes in water quality and quantity, air quality, noise, and. State-of-the-art coal plants are producing more electricity and using less . March 20 . In New York State winds deposit mercury from the coal-fired power plants of .
Thank you for a well-researched article. It was so timely since a couple of days ago Montana Rail Link managed to dump 30 cars of coal into the Clark Fork River near the Idaho- Montana border. This is upstream from Lake Pend Oreille, an outstanding fishery. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1660303184003643&set=a.1660303080670320.1073742285.100000719317504&type=3&theater
Establishing the occurrence of unburnt coal as an interduce marine debris within the ocean lagoon of the Great Barrier Reef Queensland.
The discovery was made by myself that unburnt coal was self-evident within isolated beach ecologies of central Queensland in 2016 as an introduced marine debris. Thus, in the proceeding twelve-months a randomized study was conducted to establish, unburnt coal as an interduce marine debris and to identify its occurrence within beach environments along the Queensland coast line. This study then proceed to establish 4 beach environments clearly identifiable as contaminated with unburnt coal. The contamination for one of the ecologies, was so intense, a manual count returned for one square meter of beach scrap sand over 35,000 individual of unburnt coal matter however, without funding the beach scrap spoil remands uncounted, for its particular matter content. The unburnt coal, origins are derived from coal ship loaders at the coal ports spaced along the Qld coast line, given the poor environmental regulations and the underdeveloped Queensland government considerations for the toxicity around unburnt coal, is suppressive, even in the face of scientific data from CQU Queensland that coral reefs ecosystems are adversely impacted on to point of mortality by unburnt coal.
Thanks for sharing this Article. Here is some information about Mercury Analyser which reduces mercury pollution.
Any thoughts on how to detoxify soils and water ways using Ralstonia sp. if so do you know how is it sold and how to apply it to soils and irrigation water ditches