My gut feeling is that the any impacts from the coal will be relatively benign and difficult to measure. The relative low percentage of fines and the high volume flow rate of the river will tend to mitigate any negative impacts by this type of material. It is recognized that coal contains metals (arsenic, mercury, nickle etc), compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), a whole host of many different heterocyclic aromatic compounds (i.e. containing nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, reflecting the nature of the originating material), and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). However, these "contaminants" are bound up in the coal matrix and are therefore not particularly bio-available, i.e. aquatic fauna and flora cannot absorb them based on contact or even if the coal particles are ingested by high trophic species. The finer the particle size the more potential for harm. In the river the coal may be ground up and slowly released into the water column, however it may also be buried fairly quickly. Considering the volume of water flowing in the river, my guess is that the probability of measuring an increase in contaminant concentrations in the water column downstream of the spill site would be low. The greatest concern would be probably be related to fish spawning in coal contaminated gravels.
Author
Topic: How much coal spilt into the Thompson??! (Read 1824 times)