WEST VIRGINIA SPILL
EXPOSES DISTURBING LACK OF DATA ABOUT HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS
By Kate Sheppard http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Posted: 01/15/2014
Photo: A
storage tank with the designation MCHM, the chemical that leaked into the Elk
River last week, at a Freedom Industries storage facility in Charleston, W.Va.
(AP Photo/Steve Helber) | ASSOCIATED PRESS
The 300,000 residents of nine West
Virginia counties affected by last Thursday's chemical spill are slowly starting to get notice
that they can turn on their taps again. But many are still wondering why they
didn't have more information about the potential dangers in their own backyard.
As much as 7,500 gallons of
4-methylcyclohexane methanol (also known as crude MCHM) spilled into the Elk River
about a mile and a half upstream from where the West Virginia American Water
utility draws its supply. The coal-cleaning chemical came from a storage
facility owned by Freedom Industries and located in Charleston, the state
capital.
Angie Rosser, executive director of
the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, lives along the Elk River upstream from the
spill. Even though she works on environmental issues and drives by the storage
facility regularly, she said she had no idea that the tanks held chemicals. "They
just look old and rusty," Rosser told The Huffington Post. "I just
couldn't have imagined. If I knew, our organization certainly would have raised
questions about this."
"But we are in the same boat as
the rest of the public, the water company and apparently our governor,"
Rosser said. "No one seemed to be aware or care that this dangerous
chemical was upstream from our largest drinking water intake in the state. It
was a recipe for disaster."
That seems to be the resounding
complaint in West Virginia: No one knew. The chemicals were disclosed in a filing to
the state last year, reporting that the facility could hold anywhere between
11.4 million and 63.5 million pounds of 10 different chemicals on a given day,
including up to 1 million pounds of MCHM. The forms were filed in compliance
with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, a 1986 federal law
designed to make sure plans are in place in case of an accident. MCHM was
listed on the Tier II reporting form as a "hazardous" material under the Environmental Protection Agency's classification
system. But there doesn't seem to have been a plan in place in case
of an accident, as the Charleston Gazette has reported,
and the public didn't know the chemicals were there.
West Virginia lies in the heart of
coal country, which means MCHM is likely kept in not insignificant quantities
at storage and preparation facilities across the state. Moreover, after the
chemical is used to wash the coal, the tainted wastewater is often injected
into old mines or stored in above-ground impoundments.
Yet finding out where else such
chemicals are stored in the state is difficult, environmental advocates say.
The forms disclosing the chemicals are filed with the West Virginia Department
of Military Affairs and Public Safety. Communications director Lawrence Messina
said the department keeps the past five years of filings, but most of them are
on paper -- because most of the roughly 9,500 facilities in the state that file
these reports still turn them in that way. Electronic filing has only recently
become an option, and the department itself does not offer a publicly available
online database. Individuals can request a filing for a particular facility,
presuming they know of its existence, and county emergency planners keep copies
of the filings for their local sites. So some information exists, but there's
no easy way to search it by location or chemical.
Coal field activists warn that while
the spill in Charleston is a big deal, many in the state could potentially be
exposed to the chemical on a daily basis. "It's a big emergency here based
on the fact that 300,000 people's water source was polluted, but the story here
is that coal companies use this chemical and other chemicals in West Virginia
every day," said Bill Price, a West Virginia-based organizer with the
Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign.
West Virginia Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin
(D) tried to put some distance between the coal industry and the spill. “This
was not a coal company incident," Tomblin said. "This
was a chemical company incident."
But Price said that's not much of a
distinction. "Let's be honest, the reason it was stored in Charleston is
its proximity to coal-producing areas," said Price. And he added, "We
don’t know where else this chemical may be stored."
Safety concerns related to MCHM and
other chemicals used by the coal industry have been raised before. Residents in
several parts of the state have filed lawsuits regarding the underground
disposal of coal slurry, which can contain MCHM and a number of other chemicals. Plaintiffs from
Mingo County reached a settlement with
Massey Energy in July 2011 after alleging that 1.4 billion gallons of coal slurry had contaminated their
groundwater. More than 350 residents of Boone County reached a settlement over
coal slurry contamination claims in June 2012.
Jack Spadaro, a former
superintendent of the National Mine Health and Safety
Academy (a program of the U.S. Department of Labor), testified as an
expert witness for the plaintiffs in both those cases. He said that the use of
MCHM is fairly common in the state. "It's used in virtually every coal
preparation plant in the coal fields, this chemical or something like it,"
he said.
Concerns about potentially tainted
groundwater prompted the state to put a moratorium on new underground slurry injection sites
in 2009, though underground injection is still allowed at sites that already
had permits.
And the problem is not confined to
MCHM. Finding out how many major chemical facilities there are and the
quantities of any chemicals they store is hard, said Maya Nye, spokesperson for
the citizen group People Concerned About Chemical Safety.
Nye has advocated for tougher
chemical oversight and transparency rules in the state for years, following two
previous incidents: an August 2008 explosion at a Bayer CropScience plant that
killed two workers and a January 2010 toxic release at a DuPont facility that
killed one person. But the state failed to put in place tougher rules, even
after the U.S. Chemical Safety Board recommended them, the Gazette reported.
To find out how many chemical
facilities with "extremely hazardous" substances -- that is, those
deemed more dangerous than the merely "hazardous" MCHM -- were
located in her area, Nye had to go to the EPA's reading room in Washington,
D.C., and take handwritten notes on all the risk management plans filed for the
region. Photocopying and photographs were not allowed.
Many of the area facilities that
reported extremely hazardous chemicals "were not on my radar," said
Nye. Even for the ones that were, she was surprised by the volumes stored on
site. "I was not aware of the amount of danger we were in," she said.
The two previous chemical incidents
did not, however, lead to changes in state laws regarding chemical safety and
public reporting. "I don’t think there's any major political interest in
trying to more heavily regulate the coal or the chemical industry in our state,
because they are huge economic engines," said Nye.
Maybe the latest MCHM spill will
prompt reforms.
"The fact that 300,000 people
are exposed means that someone is probably going to be willing to champion it
now," said Nye. "I don’t want to have to wait for disaster to occur
to get on top of things, but that seems like that's the only way we deal with
things in this state or this country."
WATCH VIDEOS 1-21
RELATED ARTICLES:
=========
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario