soup's on
the entire world, or at least small concentrations therein, is wondering how the u.s. is going to deal with the human health and environmental impacts from the toxic and festering floodwaters in which new orleans is submerged. well, to paraphrase a certain prophet, a crunchy bug will guide them.
this is partly true.
i mentioned, in passing, a hyper-frantic state around the office (here in ann arbor as well as in d.c.) regarding a request from epa headquarters to "examine" the issue of providing treatment for the waters that are now, as we sit here, being pumped at astounding rates into lake pontchartrain and various canals. it's easy enough to imagine the kinds of treatment processes that would be appropriate, but any attempt to put numbers to the flow rates involved (thousands of cubic feet per second, larger than the largest wastewater treatment plants in the world, and then some) produces ridiculous quantities of chemicals, numbers of floating aerators, and so on. realistic? the real priority is keeping bodies from clogging the pumps. although i am led to believe that the pumps the corps is using would pass bodies without any problem. there is just this respect for the dead thing.
anyway, i've been compelled to contemplate this for the past few days. but no amount of lsd ingested as a teenager could have fully prepared me for the conversation this afternoon, taking a call at 5:15 (instead of just getting up and leaving), from m.s. and j.w., over at epa, just to talk over the basic quantities of things to order, just to get started. assume we have to add 2.5 mg/L of dissolved oxygen to 9,000 cfs, get 25-50 100 HP aerators. then ten 3,000 gallon trucks of 15% hypochlorite. how much ferric chloride? i was embarrased not to be able to remember how much iron is in a gallon of 36% ferric chloride solution. but we're going to get 30,000 gallons of that, too, just to get started. oh yeah, and 100 tons of powdered activated carbon. bring it in by helicopter.
shitfire.
i hope this helps.
what we're thinking is that, for now anyway, the water is not all that horrible. but as they get down to the dregs, that's going to be nasty as fuck. it may require pumping it right into tankers and treating it offsite somewhere. i hope that will be someone else's design challenge. i turned down the possibility of traveling to nola, to be owm's point person to keep track of treatment efficiency. a) i am not really the person to do that, and 2) i think headquarters should limit their oversight to what they can do from washington; the locals will have enough to do without bureaucrats getting in the way.
it would be very weird to return to nola like that, in that capacity, in the middle of all this. i was last there in 1987, under very, very different circumstances. it would make a nice story, that trip.
you did not read any of this, because it is strictly confidential.
--->love bug
this is partly true.
i mentioned, in passing, a hyper-frantic state around the office (here in ann arbor as well as in d.c.) regarding a request from epa headquarters to "examine" the issue of providing treatment for the waters that are now, as we sit here, being pumped at astounding rates into lake pontchartrain and various canals. it's easy enough to imagine the kinds of treatment processes that would be appropriate, but any attempt to put numbers to the flow rates involved (thousands of cubic feet per second, larger than the largest wastewater treatment plants in the world, and then some) produces ridiculous quantities of chemicals, numbers of floating aerators, and so on. realistic? the real priority is keeping bodies from clogging the pumps. although i am led to believe that the pumps the corps is using would pass bodies without any problem. there is just this respect for the dead thing.
anyway, i've been compelled to contemplate this for the past few days. but no amount of lsd ingested as a teenager could have fully prepared me for the conversation this afternoon, taking a call at 5:15 (instead of just getting up and leaving), from m.s. and j.w., over at epa, just to talk over the basic quantities of things to order, just to get started. assume we have to add 2.5 mg/L of dissolved oxygen to 9,000 cfs, get 25-50 100 HP aerators. then ten 3,000 gallon trucks of 15% hypochlorite. how much ferric chloride? i was embarrased not to be able to remember how much iron is in a gallon of 36% ferric chloride solution. but we're going to get 30,000 gallons of that, too, just to get started. oh yeah, and 100 tons of powdered activated carbon. bring it in by helicopter.
shitfire.
i hope this helps.
what we're thinking is that, for now anyway, the water is not all that horrible. but as they get down to the dregs, that's going to be nasty as fuck. it may require pumping it right into tankers and treating it offsite somewhere. i hope that will be someone else's design challenge. i turned down the possibility of traveling to nola, to be owm's point person to keep track of treatment efficiency. a) i am not really the person to do that, and 2) i think headquarters should limit their oversight to what they can do from washington; the locals will have enough to do without bureaucrats getting in the way.
it would be very weird to return to nola like that, in that capacity, in the middle of all this. i was last there in 1987, under very, very different circumstances. it would make a nice story, that trip.
you did not read any of this, because it is strictly confidential.
--->love bug
posted by cicadashell at
1:25 AM
5 Comments:
Yeah, I am glad I didn't read it, and I am estatic that I didn't link post it either. Web coups are hard to get, but silence is even harder to find. Good post. Barrels or sunshines? Good luck with the sludge.
By
Anonymous, at 10:40 PM
windowpanes were preferred.
the ferric sludge? that's "phase 4", not for a little while yet. we may be able to use a hydraulic dredge. thanks for not reading.
By
cicadashell, at 7:35 PM
Oh, I enjoy not reading everything I can get my hands on.
The information and science of the cleanup are really going to be interesting to read about, so I hope you keep an eye on the project for us, and post up some of it if you have time.
What sort of air quality problems can be expected after the city is pumped out and the sludge turns into blowing dust, or is that too far down the line for consideration?
By
Anonymous, at 12:59 PM
the following derived from EPA news notes...
EPA Advisers Raise Concern Over Air Impacts Of Hurricane Sediment
EPA's science advisers are raising concerns that dust generated by contaminated sediment left behind by New Orleans floodwaters could pose public health threats.
As a result, members of a special Science Advisory Board (SAB) workgroup are urging the agency to develop a plan for monitoring air particles from sediment dust, which the agency could use to issue public health warnings and determine when people could move back into flooded residential areas of the city.
The panelists said on a Sep. 13 teleconference that a Region VI plan to sample sediment left behind by Hurricane Katrina flooding fails to take into account health risks that may occur when the sediment dries, turns to dust and becomes airborne.
EPA has already said that it has found E. Coli in flood waters and is also testing for fecal coliform. The agency is also testing flood waters for a slew of pollutants, including volatile organic compounds, metals, pesticides and herbicides and has already found high levels of lead in surface waters.
One SAB panelist suggested that cleanup operations could hasten the process as waters are pumped from flooded areas, drying the sediment and then sediment disposal could spread the dust. This could be of particular concern to cleanup workers, as well as residents that move back to areas affected by airborne sediment dust.
Region VI officials say they will now consider the advisers' comments on the sampling plan for sediment, which according to the plan will help agency staff assess the presence of hazardous substances in residential areas, as well as determining the potential for exposure of residents to such substances.
The plan requires EPA to collect 24 samples from a one square mile site where floodwaters have receded. On the teleconference, Region VI officials said sampling has already been carried out in several parts of New Orleans, and that more would be done as waters recede in other parts of the city. SAB member Louis Thibodeaux, a Louisiana State University professor, said sampling in such a “piecemeal” approach was likely the only feasible option.
However, the sampling only tests sediment on the ground and does not account for airborne particles from the sediment. In written comments on the plan ahead of the teleconference, some SAB members questioned whether the plan was broad enough in scope to be truly representative of sediment left behind throughout the state, and urged EPA to address the problem of the sediment drying, turning into dust and becoming airborne.
SAB member David Dzombak, a Carnegie-Mellon university professor who chairs the SAB workgroup reviewing the monitoring plan, expressed concern that exposure to airborne sediment dust will be an “important exposure pathway” as the sediment dries. Dzombak wrote that no plans for air sampling are discussed in the plan and added “Air sampling may be lower on the priority list considering that much of the sediment is still wet, but I recommend that plans for air sampling start to be formulated.”
On the teleconference, Dzombak reiterated that sediment particles in the form of particles must be addressed in either an updated sediment sampling plan or a future plan to be developed by EPA. “Inhalation through airborne dust will be a pathway” to exposure from hazardous substances in the sediment, Dzombak argued.
Robert Pitt, a University of Alabama professor, raised concerns that as floodwaters are pumped out of New Orleans, the sediments left behind will rapidly dry. Pitt believed that potential aerosol problems may occur from the sediment turning into dust during cleanup operations, and argued that “these hazards should also be considered in the risk evaluation.”
In addition, SAB member Richard Gilbert, a staff scientist at the Battelle Memorial Institute, questioned whether the proposed 24 samples per square mile site would be sufficient to determine whether people can return to their homes and businesses without a potential health hazard. Gilbert said more sampling would be necessary and cautioned that “I fear that the 24 data will be the basis of public statements about health hazards that will be shown to be false upon further sampling efforts.”
Gilbert added that the sampling may not be representative of the contamination that may be found in sediment in different geographical areas. The plan states that if no contaminants in the sediment sample exceed specified EPA benchmarks, no further environmental screening will be necessary. “Really? Are these preliminary data sufficient to make that decision? Are the samples collected in this plan really representative of all flooded areas?” Gilbert asked.
Region VI officials listening in to the teleconference said they would take SAB's comments and consider them as they continue to collect samples on the hazardous substances in the floodwater sediment. Neither EPA officials nor SAB panelists discussed whether the sampling results would be used to determine how to dispose of the tons of sediment left behind, but several participants cautioned against reading too much into preliminary results from just a few sample sites.
SAB member Jeffrey Griffiths, an associate professor at Tufts University, Boston, said “We should move forward with the understanding that this is a first look” at the sediment and said that while the plan was a decent initial approach, it would not be sufficient as a means of estimating contamination in all parts of the city, or to determine when people could be able to move back into flooded residential areas where waters have receded.
By
cicadashell, at 12:28 PM
Thank You sir, I shall of course having not read any of this, endeavor not to remember it either.
By
Anonymous, at 3:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home