BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: bobad
Date: 19 Jan 14 - 06:01 PM

That's the price we pay for cheap and plentiful food - it's not sustainable in the long run.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 19 Jan 14 - 05:39 PM

Agree.


I am not well travelled, and still recall my shock on my first trip to California in the late 1980's, stopping at rest stops on the interstate that runs through the Central Valley - I-5? Water fountains all had a warning to not let children drink from the fountains because of high nitrogen or phosphorus content, I forget which. Presumably from agriculture.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jan 14 - 05:23 PM

I suppose evolution will take it's course, no matter what. Eh?

Yes, but there's no need to "help it along" with this sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 19 Jan 14 - 03:58 PM

Talked to my water resource engineer sister this morning who is still at Mom's. Based on her evaluation of the research on which the water company and government agencies are basing their assertions the water is now safe for all but pregnant women (and possibly young children,) they have decided to not use water from the tap for anything until the entire distribution system is completely flushed of the chemical spill. Not only are they not drinking it, they are not bathing in it, washing dishes, doing laundry or watering houseplants.

She says it is clear there is simply not enough known to make any assumptions about the safety of MCHM. Government agencies are making extrapolations based on limited research on rats, but the body of research is simply too scant to trust extrapolations. Beyond that, she says that while MCHM was the largest chemical compound in the coal cleaning agent that leaked, the coal cleaning mix included several other chemical compounds in lesser quantities about which equally little is known.

Also makes her much more aware of just how unsafe the nation's water supplies probably are, in general.

From a very long range and logical perspective, I suppose evolution will take it's course, no matter what. Eh?

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 19 Jan 14 - 09:03 AM

An AP article published yesterday really lays out just what coal has done to our water - from mines and also from coal fired power plants.


Only the latest case -

By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press; SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The chemical spill that contaminated water for hundreds of thousands in West Virginia was only the latest and most high-profile case of coal sullying the nation's waters.

For decades, chemicals and waste from the coal industry have tainted hundreds of waterways and groundwater supplies, spoiling private wells, shutting down fishing and rendering streams virtually lifeless, according to an Associated Press analysis of federal environmental data.

But because these contaminants are released gradually and in some cases not tracked or regulated, they attract much less attention than a massive spill such as the recent one in West Virginia.

"I've made a career of body counts of dead fish and wildlife made that way from coal," said Dennis Lemly, a U.S. Forest Service research biologist who has spent decades chronicling the deformities pollution from coal mining has caused in fish.

"How many years and how many cases does it take before somebody will step up to the plate and say, 'Wait a minute, we need to change this'?"

The spill of a coal-cleaning chemical into a river in Charleston, W.Va., left 300,000 people without water. It exposed a potentially new and under-regulated risk to water from the coal industry when the federal government is still trying to close regulatory gaps that have contributed to coal's legacy of water pollution.

From coal mining to the waste created when coal is burned for electricity, pollutants associated with coal have contaminated waterways, wells and lakes with far more insidious and longer-lasting contaminants than the chemical that spilled out of a tank farm on the banks of the Elk River.

Chief among them are discharges from coal-fired power plants that alone are responsible for 50 percent to 60 percent of all toxic pollution entering the nation's water, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Thanks to even tougher air pollution regulations underway, more pollution from coal-fired power plants is expected to enter the nation's waterways, according to a recent EPA assessment.

"Clean coal means perhaps cleaner atmosphere, but dirtier water," said Avner Vengosh, a Duke University researcher who has monitored discharges from power plant waste ponds and landfills in North Carolina.

In that state, Vengosh and other researchers found contaminants from coal ash disposal sites threatening the drinking water for Charlotte, the nation's 17th-largest city, with cancer-causing arsenic.

"It is kind of a time bomb that can erupt in some kind of specific condition," Vengosh said. The water shows no signs of arsenic contamination now.

In southeastern Ohio, tainted water draining from abandoned coal mines shuttered a century ago still turns portions of the Raccoon Creek orange with iron and coats the half-submerged rocks along its path white with aluminum.

Public drinking water systems in 14 West Virginia counties where mining companies are blasting off mountaintops to get to coal seams exceeded state safe drinking water standards seven times more than in nonmining counties, according to a study published in a water quality journal in 2012. The systems provided water for more than a million people.

The water quality monitoring in mining areas is so inadequate that most health violations likely were not caught, said Michael Hendryx, the study's author and a professor of applied health at Indiana University.

The EPA, in an environmental assessment last year, identified 132 cases where coal-fired power plant waste has damaged rivers, streams and lakes, and 123 where it has tainted underground water sources, in many cases legally, officials said.

Among them is the massive failure of a waste pond at a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in 2008. More than 5 million cubic yards of ash poured into a river and spoiled hundreds of acres in a community 35 miles west of Knoxville.

Overall, power plants contributed to the degradation of 399 bodies of water that are drinking water sources, according to the EPA.

There are no federal limits on the vast majority of chemicals that power plants pipe directly into rivers, streams and reservoirs. The EPA just last year proposed setting limits on a few of the compounds, the first update since 1982. More than five years after the Tennessee spill, the EPA has yet to issue federal regulations governing the disposal of coal ash.

Experts say the agency is playing catch-up to solve a problem that began when it required power plants in the 1990s to scrub their air pollution to remove sulfur dioxide. An unintended consequence was that the pollutants captured were dumped into landfills and ponds, many unlined, where they seeped into underground aquifers or were piped into adjacent rivers, reservoirs and lakes.

"As you are pushing air rules that are definitely needed, you need to think of the water. And they didn't," said Eric Schaeffer, a former EPA enforcement official. "Now they are running after the problem."

He now heads the Environmental Integrity Project, a group whose research has uncovered previously unknown sites of contamination from power plant waste pits.

The federal government has in recent years issued the first-ever regulations for mercury released from power plant smokestacks, the largest source of mercury entering waterways. The EPA has stepped up its review of mountaintop mining permits, to reduce pollution.

"Coal-related pollution remains a significant contributor to water quality pollution across the United States," said Alisha Johnson, an EPA spokeswoman. "The EPA's efforts have yielded significant improvements, but significant work still remains."

On the mining side, a review of federal environmental enforcement records shows that nearly three-quarters of the 1,727 coal mines listed haven't been inspected in the past five years to see if they are obeying water pollution laws. Also, 13 percent of the fossil-fuel fired power plants are not complying with the Clean Water Act.

Many mines don't even report their discharges of selenium, although researchers have found the chemical near mines at levels where it can cause deformities and reproductive failure in fish.

A study in the journal Science in 2010 found that 73 of 78 West Virginia streams in mountaintop mine removal areas had selenium levels higher than the official threshold for fish life. Higher levels of selenium — a natural component of coal that seeps from rock when water runs through it — often means fish don't reproduce or have deformed, even two-headed, offspring, Lemly said.

University of Maryland environmental sciences professor Margaret Palmer spent much of the weekend that Charleston was without water testing the Stillhouse Branch stream near Clay, W.Va., just below a mountaintop removal coal mine. She said her tests showed the water was too salty from the rocks from the mine.

"It's like a desert with a few water rats in it," Palmer said. "The organisms that do live in (these streams), you think of them like water rats. Only the really hearty ones survive."

Efforts by the EPA to ease the problem, by requiring mine permits to be judged by a measure of the saltiness in downstream water, have been vacated by a federal court. That decision is under appeal.

A spokesman for the National Mining Association said the industry operates in accord with extensive and rigorous permitting guidelines.

Pollution still enters the environment from coal mined decades ago.

The EPA estimates 12,000 river miles are tainted by acid mine drainage from long-shuttered coal mines. One of them is Raccoon Creek in southeastern Ohio.

"These mines have been abandoned for a hundred years," said Amy Mackey, Raccoon Creek's watershed coordinator. "There is no one to fall back on."

States take the lead on the water pollution front. But advocacy groups from at least three states in coal country — Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana — have asked the EPA to step in, arguing that state officials aren't doing enough.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Jan 14 - 10:30 AM

Oldest trick in the book to avoid responsibility, Spaw. And the spirit that made Amerika great & keeps it there.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: catspaw49
Date: 17 Jan 14 - 08:12 PM

And of course there is now this not unexpected news.......and the hits just keep on comin'................Let's File for Bankruptcy!!!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 15 Jan 14 - 06:45 PM

My niece shared the following from the Evironmental Defense Fund on Facebook today. It is as much opinion as anything, but let's me know I was not out in left field completely in my 1/14 8:05 pm post.

http://blogs.edf.org/health/2014/01/13/west-virginia-officials-trust-shaky-science-in-rush-to-restore-water-service-one-part-per

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 09:33 PM

Who Owns West Virginia?

My posts are not as West Virginia ethnocentric as they may seem. Think about it in terms of not just your own region or geographic areas that you now inhabit or have a personal connection with. Think about it, deeply and with willingness to allow for complexity and paradox, for all your own personal connections to place, and to the earth.

Where in the world, here and now, lies "enlighted self-interest?" It is not clear, and there is no one answer.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 08:44 PM

Let the buck passing begin

Human behavior. Fact of nature, just as with every other species.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 08:05 PM

Sorry I don't proof read more carefully. Way too many commas.

After the first few zones, restoration, of necessity, is going very slowly. Lots of settlement has occurred in the lines during the days of little water flowing, and that is getting well stirred. I'm guessing that results in residents in the zones that have the go ahead to have to flush their lines beyond what is necessary to flush the chemical itself. Although the sediment filled water is theoretically safe to drink, one would not want to wash clothes, clog an ice maker or appliance with it, and probably wouldn't be too inclined to drink it either, because of the ick factor, if nothing else.

There is one thing remarkable in the approach taken in this particular incident. It seems that often, when it comes to potential public harm, the burden of proof is on people concerned about potential harm, and that proof has to be overwhelming, immediate, and massive before anything happens. In this instance, the public may actually have been well-served by the complete ignorance of anyone of possible harm or how to measure possible harm. The water supply was shut down, not because of known risk, but because nobody knew jack sh*t at all. No conflicting or contradictory studies, etc. It was at the point that the government realized there really wasn't anything out there at all, that the water system was shut down. And the reason there was (and really, still is) no information, is this is not a substance that will kill you instantly, but is an irritant that has some potential to cause immediate, vs. long term medical problems.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 02:31 PM

Thanks, Janie.
Obviously the storage conditions (and general safety precautions) need to be addressed by the company and state regulatory agencies.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 10:18 AM

I concur with spaw about Janie and Dick's posts.

Am I right in fearing another monster on the horizon for the people of West Virginia, the recent gas boom.

Cheaper to extract and transport than coal, less carbon pollution, less damage to the environment than taking the top of a mountain and letting the waste flow down the sides.

If WV further regulates the industry, won't they hasten its looming demise?

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jan 14 - 10:07 AM

Excellent postings as always Janie and Dick states the case precisely and succinctly.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 13 Jan 14 - 08:44 PM

Water slowly but apparently steadily being restored. Mom is kind of at the end of the line for this water system so they expect to be without water for at least a few more days. Hopefully, customers throughout the system will heed instructions to not flush lines prematurely, thus screwing everything up and slowing the process down over all.

It is clear that on the State level, the Governor, his appointees and the legislature are very unlikely to put into place the measures that could not only have prevented this from either happening, or at least from turning into the disaster it did. Just like for years they have ignored recommendations from the CSB, that would have at least enabled Kanawha Co. which was very willing, to put into place measures and regulations that not only would have prevented or mitigated against this, but also could have prevented numerous accidents, as well as deaths, at several chemical plants in the Valley.

Combination of money in politics from the coal and chemical industries, and what Dick said.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 04:55 PM

Exactly, Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 04:49 PM

THe sad part is that the strongest supporters of the coal industry are the people most damaged by it. It's hard to attack something that provides your only livelihood.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 03:14 PM

There have been many more toxic releases of chemicals into the air and the water of the Kanawha Valley over the years that have not generated nearly this much attention. Although this spill is likely less toxic, it is generating so much attention because it impacts the basic infrastructure on which we all rely, therefore impacting hundreds of thousands of lives. The reason it is having such a long-lasting impact is because there was so much ignorance and inattention all along the line. The reason there was so much ignorance and inattention is multidetermined and appears in part due to awareness in the Valley and the State that this chemical, relative to the many other toxic substances generated by not only coal mine operations but especially the many chemical plants in the Valley, was of lesser concern, and therefore a lower priority.

I was raised in the Kanawha Valley. Graduated from Nitro High School, Rap. When I was growing up, the air often stank so bad it made us nauseous. We often bought water to drink because of the odor and taste of what came out of the tap. We learned only after Bhopal, that the mysterious underground storage facility 4 miles from my house that was maintained by Union Carbide at Institute, stored methyl isocyanate. Probably still does, though I think it is now owned by Bayer, not Union Carbide. (might be wrong - lots of the plants have changed hands several times since I left WV, and I don't stay on top of it.) Fish in the Kanawha River had weird tumors and nobody fished in the river, or if they did, they didn't eat anything they caught.

The environment is better now, though far from perfect. I don't know how many chlorine leaks have occurred over the years from I.E. DuPont and other chemical companies from around Belle, towards the head of the valley. In more recent years, one or two deaths of people actually working at the plants, occasional hospitalizations. What I best remember is a major chlorine leak in the mid to late 1960's that killed livestock, caused deaths and resulted in a significant part of the valley being evacuated. We lived about 25 miles downstream and did not evacuate, though we considered it. Air smelled strongly of chlorine, but based on what we were hearing in the middle of the night, my parents decided to shelter in place, as it was dilute enough at that distance to not be immediately dangerous. The water plant is on the Elk, rather than the much larger Kanawha, because the Elk is less polluted. I'm not sure there are any water plants on the Kanawha, at least below Montgomery.

Long before Mountaintop removal, I have seen, waded in, or avoided beautiful streams killed by acid run-off from mines. I have seen streams clogged with silt from clear cutting on the steep slopes above them. Now, people who live near mountaintop removal sites are cautioned to not eat their home grown produce - dust from heavy metals and elements in the air and in the water, previously locked up deep underground in rock, may well render them toxic. While living on a piece of rental property in a very rural area in Harrison County, I lamented the obvious pollution into a very small little creek that originated on that 20 acres from a gas well. That little creek eventually wound it's way into the Little Kanawha River, thence to the Ohio.   At the same time, I did not hesitate to take advantage of the free natural gas afforded to the abode as a royalty to run my gas refrigerator, furnace, hot water tank, and gas dryer.

I do hope and expect there to be a good dissection of what went wrong. I hope it is much more about responsibility and less about blame. Blaming generally leads to efforts to dodge responsibility, or even to disowning of responsibility, which leads to less corrective action.

I also confess I get more than a little tired of the caricatures of West Virginia that continue to be so prevalent. Those caricatures imply blame on one population beset by ignorance. This entire nation has long the reaped the benefits and conveniences of the cheap natural resources, advanced chemistry, and production and storage of chemicals such as occurs in regions such as West Virginia, though we are certainly not the only region where this is true. The exploition of places such as West Virginia is possible and profitable only because there is national and global benefit There is also surely local benefit. The broader benefits are well known and accounted for. Everyone wants the benefits. But no one else is willing to share as equally in the costs as they are willing to lap up the benefits.

Don't misunderstand my little rant as justification or excuse for the risks or harms. But stupid, unidirectional blaming of a capitalist system does no good. Look at North Korea, the Soviet Union, China, for example, and then tell me the problem is all due to exploitive Capitalism. Within our hybrid and flawed (we are all human, btw) system, tell me that in general, the individual residents of this nation or continent are as prepared to share in the sacrifices people in places like WV make to either produce, or stop producing what they do?

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 01:31 PM

US attorney: Feds to probe W.Va. chemical spill

"authorities are opening an investigation into what caused a chemical spill that tainted a river and shut down much of the state's capital city and surrounding counties.

U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin said in a news release Friday that his office and other agencies will investigate the circumstances surrounding the release and determine what caused it. He says authorities will take whatever action is appropriate based on the evidence found."

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 12:05 PM

Come visit, Spaw. I'll introduce you to my gun dealer, Sam. He thinks Obama is GREAT!! because Sam feels that he's sold more guns for him than any other reason.

Oh, yes -- Sam will NOT sell a firearm to anyone he thinks shouldn't have one, background check or not. Social responsibility -- odd, that. Maybe it's because Sam's a professional (PhD) engineer, ex-Special Forces, and from Thailand. I'd give you his last name but I can neither spell it nor pronounce it.

His daughtere, by the way, is currently in Afghanistan -- a lieutenant colonel and West Point graduate. Sam's careful about who he sells to "because I've got the best grandchildren in the whole world."

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 11:17 AM

Maybe I'll just join the "Gun Lobby" so I'll feel the joy of success!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 10:48 AM

"Now there ya go again", Spaw.

Ya want a bunch of tree-huggers, socialists and bleeding-heart liberals tellin' a business where they can locate & how they can operate & regulatin' 'em into bankrupsy?? Ain't you never heerd of lazee-fairy capitalizm? This is the U S of A, not Rooshia!

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 08:21 AM

It seems to be the dominant management style. We know there are problems but it still works so let's make the money while the sun shines. It just might keep on shining! Who knows?

Think: CHALLENGER

It falls to us. We can be more vigilant. We can better support the "Whistle Blowers." We can demand better oversight. There are a hundred things we can do, even those among us who can no longer stand a demo or the like.

Ya' know the only time I see people go ballistic over a cause are when we try to change gun laws. It's depressing.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 12 Jan 14 - 07:59 AM

That's it, Rap. This was highly preventable because the company already knew the storage and containment structures were inadequate and in need of repair. In addition, although neither the local government nor the water company have any responsibility for the leak occurring, they did have - at least local emergency response agencies did - responsibility for having a plan in place to act quickly in the event of a leak.   That plan would have included already knowing about the chemical, it's toxicity level, how to test for levels, etc., etc. Everybody was caught like deer in the headlights, but "headlights" did not suddenly appear from around a blind curve.

Why wasn't there a plan? Key players knew of potential for Elk River spill From the this article, appearing in today's Sunday Gazette/Mail, CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Last February, Freedom Industries sent state officials a form telling them the company stored thousands of pounds of a coal-cleaning chemical called 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol in the storage tanks at its Etowah River Terminal.

The facility, along the Elk River not far from downtown Charleston, is about 1.5 miles upstream from the intake West Virginia American Water uses to supply drinking water for 300,000 residents across the capital city and the surrounding region.

Freedom Industries filed its "Tier 2" form under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act. State emergency response officials got a copy. So did emergency planners and responders from Kanawha County.

Under the law, government officials are supposed to use chemical inventory information on Tier 2 forms, like Freedom Industries', to prepare for potential accidents.

Armed with the forms, they know what facilities could explode, where large quantities of dangerous substances are stockpiled, and what industries could pose threats to things such as drinking water supplies. They can plan how to evacuate residents, fight fires or contain toxic leaks.... No preparation was done.

I can understand how this happens - how this got put at the bottom of some one's "to do" pile. The chemical does have relatively low toxicity compared to many of the other chemicals manufactured and stored along the rivers in the valley. However, it does seem that the location of the storage facility just 1 1/2 miles above the water plant might have bumped it up a notch or two on the list of priorities for a strapped, tax-funded agency. The water company was also apparently not proactive about knowing what was stored just above their water plant.

Plenty of responsibility to go around - not for the leak, but for the disorganized response to the leak that is likely prolonging the amount of time it is taking to get water to 300,000 people. As is often the case, a cascade of weaknesses and failures in a system.


Rap, Not sure the company will die, though this may be financial death for them. They haven't been ordered to go out of business. They've been ordered to cease operations, drain all the storage tanks, inspect, remediate, repair, etc. I suppose if they do that, and have the resources left, they can resume using the storage facility.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 10:29 PM

A simple barrier in the containment area would have prevented the spill. The stuff that spilled isn't sulphuric acid -- it's actually RELATIVELY harmless. A seamless concrete saucer could have done the trick; so could a plastic liner.

So 300,000 people are and will be without drinking, bathing, dish-washing, or cooking water for the next several days or weeks or...and what does it do to the ecology of the rivers?

To save a few dollars the company is now going to die...who wants to bet that no lessons will be learned by other companies?

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 05:39 PM

Also, the bloody COMPANY could have prevented this, too, if they were a responsible instead of a crap outfit. Don't put this on the State or Federal government.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 05:36 PM

Yeah, well, like I said above: Republican cuts to Federal EPA personnel, operating budgets, inspectors & etc. as well as aid to States. Gettin' O-pressive gummint & its job-killing oversight & regulations off our backs. And imposing austerity across the board.

What would one expect to be the outcome?

Pretty soon, we'll be right back in the robber baron, pre-Theo. Roosevelt mode.

Them what don't learn from history...&c.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 05:32 PM

Y'all are WIMPS! Why, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol(if it HAD a Material Safety Data Sheet) would probably list the LD50 at about 2.25 grams per kilogram of body weight! And iffen ya don't use it ta wash yer coal, who's gonna scrub it fer ya? Yer air will stink, too! Ya wanna take a shower? REAL West Virginians don't, but just wear a hazmat suit. As fer them chemical companies, ain't Nitro down there near Charleston? Seems ta me that why should anybody CARE about that "fly-over" country twixt the East and West Coasts anyway. Just a lot of hicks and rednecks.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 04:23 PM

Seems like a good inspection program by the WV Dept. of Environmental Protection or other appropriate federal or state agency could have prevented this. According to
this brief article , the prior and recently new owners of the company had identified there was a problem, and the transactions around the sale of the company took into account the costs for fixing the problem. Some one could have been all over this, already.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 02:29 PM

Capitalism in action. Typical.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 12:44 PM

Greg, Allan was being sarcastic.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 12:42 PM

Freedom Industries has now been ordered to shut down operations and drain all tanks for inspection. The company says they reported the leak and took action immediately. Government agencies say the company did not. Complaints from residents in the area about odor in the air and the water is what alerted both government agencies and the water company that something was amiss.

I may be naive, but I can't understand why such a storage facility was allowed to be built and maintained on the Elk to begin with. It is located 1 1/2 miles above the water supply intake for American Water Co., that serves 9 counties of WV, including the most populous urban area of the state.

Lots of rain predicted for the weekend, which will raise water volume in the rivers and speed dilution as the chemical makes it way down the Kanawha to the Ohio.

The problem the water company is faced with is that the chemical entered the water distribution system. The only solution is to flush the system, and dilution levels in the Elk have not yet reached a level that permits flushing of the distribution lines, which in and of itself will take some time. Adding to the water company woes are they are busy repairing many breaks in water mains in the region caused by freezing during the extreme cold earlier in the week.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 12:28 PM

Perhaps the reason Freedom Industries hasn't yet made a statement is that they appear to be unable to do so online...

Online? You're kidding, right? All they have to do is pick up the phone or FAX a press release.

There IS life without websites & Internet, ya know- or don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 12:21 PM

The above link goes to page two of the article. Go to bottom for link to page one.

From the article

Along with the vacuum of health-effect information, Scharman noted, there's been some confusion about exactly what substance was involved.

For one thing, 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol has quite a few synonyms. For another, because there's so little known about it, searches of online databases can easily pull up a different substance, leading to misunderstandings about the potential health impacts.

Some residents -- and some news outlets -- have cited health information about chemicals other than those that were actually involved in the Freedom Industries leak.

Also, during a news conference Friday morning, West Virginia American Water President Jeff McIntyre revealed that his company initially was given incorrect information -- he didn't know by whom -- about what material was involved in the spill.

And a little further down, at the end The lack of health guidelines or regulatory limits isn't that unusual, either. Few chemicals are actually regulated by safe-drinking-water or other water-quality rules, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has tested only about 200 of the 84,000 chemicals in the agency's inventory.

"Most chemicals in commerce we know very little about," said Celeste Monforton, a George Washington University public-health researcher. "This stuff is in the water now, and people have ingested it, and we just don't know. It's very concerning...."

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 11:49 AM

MCHM is the common abbreviation for the chemical involved, is used un several industries, cellulose ester solvent, in lacquers, resins, oils, and waxes, as an antioxidant for lubricants, as a blending agent for textile soaps, and patented as an air freshener.

You may be using it in your home.

All this in addition to its use in a froth flotation method for cleaning coal and other mined substances.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Allan C.
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 11:29 AM

Perhaps the reason Freedom Industries hasn't yet made a statement is that they appear to be unable to do so online, at least. Here is what you get when you attempt to access their website:

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 11 Jan 14 - 11:09 AM

Just talked to my sister, and they think it will still be days before they get the all clear for water. Huge impact on businesses, schools, hospitals. The ban on using the water supply to water livestock has been lifted, but she thinks it is probably still unknown if it is actually safe for livestock. Also says there is a lot of conflicting information and it is impossible to know what might be accurate and what is not. Essentially, no one knows if there is a safe dilution level for this chemical, and there is no way to remove it from the water supply through water treatment.

She's a water resource engineer - spent her career designing water treatment and waste water treatment plants. Some people are starting to use the water for bathing in spite of the ban, but she considers that pretty stupid, given that no one knows. She says in the absence of any good science, they won't be using the water until the chemical is completely out of the water system. I'm glad she's up there at Mom's. Mom would be in a real pickle post surgery without her just now.

The following article is an eye opener, pointing out that little is actually known about many chemicals manufactured and stored along our rivers that may enter the water supply.

What is 'Crude MCHM'? Few know.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 09:31 PM

Well, look on the bright side, Janie- they got it into a limited water supply all at once this time and people know about it, instead of it leaching un-reported into the groundwater from the hundreds of coal company slurry ponds all across the state and poisoning lots more people...

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 09:10 PM

That appears to be the case with this particular chemical, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 08:19 PM

Actually, if NBC news & the Associated Press can be believed, the chemical in question is "used for processing coal".

Now THERE'S a surprise....

The primary component in the foaming agent that leaked is the chemical 4-methylcyclohexane methanol. The agent is mixed with ground-up coal to separate it from soil and rock particles, said Paul Ziemkiewicz, director of the West Virginia Water Research Institute. After the coal is cleansed, the leftover mixtures of chemicals and mud are piped to slurry ponds, where much of the chemical mixture is stored until re-used.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 07:42 PM

Spill from Freedom Industries of Charleston, a supplier of "freeze conditioning agents, dust control palliatives, flotation reagents, water treatment polymers," etc. These are mostly for the steel, mining, and cement industries.
In other words, a hell of a lot of possibilities.

Their website seems to be mostly "frozen" at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 06:55 PM

Hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 06:22 PM

Good to know that the Republicans have been rolling back Job-killing regulations on and oversight of corporations for since Reagan, ain't it?

Gotta get government off out backs, ya know?

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 05:28 PM

Several issues bother me, aside from the reality of the spill.

1. The Company that spilled the chemical has still made no statement nor responded to inquiries. That company did not report the spill. It was discovered independently. As best I can determine, the company, Freedom Industries, has made no comment whatsoever.
2. Although state government responded appropriately once they learned of the spill and also realized no one seems to know what, if any, significant biohazards exist - that really is scary, that chemicals are produced commercially on a river next door to a water plant that supplies water to 9 counties, with no one - absolutely no one - having any idea regarding their toxicity or environmental risk
3. No one in the state or federal government, nor any environmental groups in WV, seem to be commenting on a) Freedom Industries not reporting the leak b) Freedom Industries not commenting on the leak c) regulations or the lack thereof that result in 300,000 people being without water except to flush toilets, if no other reason than nobody knows what the risk is?!!!!!

The water company, once they stumbled across awareness of the leak and that it had entered the water treatment system on the Elk, initially assured customers there was no risk. An hour or so later, the governor declared a water emergency and 5 counties were told to not use the water for any purpose other than flushing. Later expanded to 9 counties.

Because nobody knows what hazard it might represent.

Give me a break!

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 02:57 PM

Naw, he's an NC woodpecker. Only reads the local news:>)

Greg F. Charleston and the Kanawha Valley were once called "Chemical Valley." Still a lot of chemical plants but not like there used to be, and many of the major USA chemical plants moved most of their operations overseas in response to US environmental laws tightening up. I.E. DuPont and Union Carbide still have some presence though they have moved their more dangerous operations overseas. When I was growing up, the major players were IE DuPont, Union Carbide, Monsanto, FMC and WESVACO. I don't think any of them had any financial investment, or if they did, it was minor, in coal mines. When the USA firms moved out, European firms took over the chemical plants, at a scaled down versions. Now they are also moving out.

The river and the air are much cleaner. The economy is shot. One of the reasons I am a WV expat. I didn't work in the industry. I worked in government social services. The tax dollars that funded the services went away, and so did the services.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: gnu
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 02:26 PM

Hope yer woodpecker heard the about the spill in the media.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 02:02 PM

Fortunately, attitude is everything. Have a strong sense that your family and mine are pretty similar in that respect. Misery is optional. It's ok to occasionally indulge, just like one may occasionally sit down and eat waaaayyyy to many chocolate covered cherries. But life is better if one doesn't make a habit of doing so.


Re: the coal problem. It isn't just a coal problem. I appreciated "FUCK ALL OF US FOR RELYING ON THE SHIT FOR WAY TOO LONG."

Whether it be coal, electronic/computer devices, plastic grocery bags, fertilizer on the fields, lithium batteries, or nuclear medicine, we humans have fouled the nest to the point the point that actual mitigation or remediation is not possible without significant sacrifice on the part of someone. Who makes the sacrifice, and perhaps more importantly, who decides, and how do the decisions get made about who makes the sacrifices? How broadly is society prepared to share in the sacrifices?

Add to that that what one party considers a sacrifice another party considers simply a condition of life.

Got to stop here and start a 2014 bird thread - first pileated woodpecker I have ever seen on the Piedmont is at my suet feeder!

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 01:38 PM

the many chemical plants...and I don't think any of them had anything thing to do with the coal industry.

Hmmm - Spaw, I'd be interested to know who OWNS these chemical plants. Couldn't be the same friendly, law-abiding conglomerates that own the various coal companies, could it?

Naaah, couldn't be.

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 01:18 PM

Well Janie, this one did and I am sick to death of the whole coal problem and knowing I will never see a resolution.....Sorry, you are right on this of course.

I just read about your Mom on the Rainbow thread, immediately wondering how much she would be affected. Hope it gets fixed soon for her sake.....gotta' be miserable.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: W. Virginia Chemical Spill
From: Janie
Date: 10 Jan 14 - 01:04 PM

Mom home from surgery Wednesday night, and no water to use by Thursday night! Definitely a bit of a mess.

While I don't think the chemical is super toxic, my nephew did forget and wash his hands in tap water after the warning went out, and his hands began quickly red and mildly irritated.

Restaurants are closed down. National Guard is bringing in water. At least toilets can be flushed.

Imagining what it is like for hospitals and medical offices in the region.

'Spaw, in fairness, there have been many worse spills and leaks into the atmosphere in the area over the years from the many chemical plants, much more toxic, and I don't think any of them had anything thing to do with the coal industry.


Not minimizing the seriousness and impact of this - 300,000 people and a huge number of businesses are effected. But it easily could have been a spill much more toxic and absolutely unrelated to coal.