The Christian Science Monitor reported last week that a massive chemical spill in Charleston, W.Va., which left more than 300,000 residents without safe drinking water for several days, has raised questions about the regulation of chemicals used in coal processing.The compound that contaminated the Elk River, Crude MCHM (4-methylcyclohexane methanol), is made by the Eastman Chemical Co. The Kingsport-based company is among the defendants named in a lawsuit related to the spill filed Jan. 13 in U.S. District Court in Charleston, W.Va.The CSM reported on its digital edition Jan. 14 that Eastman has labeled the compound as a skin irritant that could be potentially harmful if ingested.Officials with the West Virginia American Water Co., the utility that supplies the contaminated area, were so concerned about the public health impact of the chemical spill that they posted the following online:“Due to the nature of the contamination, it is not safe to use the water for any purpose. Alternative sources of water should be used for all purposes. Bottled water or water from another, safe source should be used for drinking, making ice, brushing teeth, washing dishes, bathing, food and baby formula preparation and all other purposes until further notice.” MCHM is a chemical foam used to remove impurities from coal that cause pollution when it is burned.“In actuality, little is known about the human health effects of MCHM,” reports CSM staff writer Noelle Swan. “While Eastman has produced a material safety data sheet (MSDS), as is legally required for all chemical compounds used in industry under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, much of the information appears to be incomplete.”Sheldon Krimsky, a professor of environmental policy at Tufts University in Medford, Mass., told Swan there doesn’t seem to be any information on the direct effects the chemical might have on humans.“There are so many aspects of this chemical that there is no information about, including its general toxicity,” Krimsky said.He said the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate and restrict the use of chemical substances. When a company creates a new chemical, the EPA has 90 days to study it and determine how it should be regulated before the company can use it. The EPA, however, is rarely capable of analyzing a chemical during that limited time period. Once the 90-day window has passed, companies are allowed to use the chemicals.“Environmental advocates and legislators have been pushing for revision of the TSCA for several years in hopes of correcting this loophole, but Congress has yet to pass new legislation,” Swan writes.We want to hear from you. Should chemicals like that involved in the West Virginia spill face stiffer regulations?Send your comments to Mailbag, P.O. Box 1717, Johnson City, TN 37605-1717, or mailbag@johnsoncitypress.com. Please include your name, telephone number and address for verification. We will print your responses on the Opinion pages soon.
↧