On the shore of a disaster: faculty address Elk River chemical spill
A January 9 chemical spill contaminated the water supply of hundreds of thousands of West Virginia residents with a chemical agent used to clean coal (crude 4-methylcyclohexane methane, or MCHM). And for two Saint Joseph鈥檚 faculty members鈥攃hemistry professor Dr. Emily Lesher and assistant professor of psychology Dr. Marion Young鈥攖he ensuing concerns and questions over this incident hit close to home.
Lesher, who earned her doctorate from the Colorado School of Mines, and specializes in water quality and analysis and mining鈥檚 impact on the environment, among other topics, was quick to point out that the chemical spill and the uncertainty of the chemical鈥檚 effects on people pointed to regulatory concerns. And for Young, a developmental psychologist who earned her doctorate from West Virginia University, the confusion over the chemical鈥檚 potential effects on the population raised a series of questions on how the ensuing mental stress could harm the residents.
After receiving reports of a licorice-like odor in residents鈥� tap water, West Virginia state officials traced the leak to a storage containment area along the Elk River. By the time the discovery was made, as much as 10,000 gallons of a chemical mixture composed primarily of MCHM had seeped into water supply. Officials then issued a do-not-use order for tap water, but not before hundreds of people sought medical attention for rashes, stomachaches, and other short-term ailments. While there were these visible signs of people being affected by the chemical, Lesher says there is still more to be understood about its effects on the body.
Passed by Congress in 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the introduction of new chemicals. But since MCHM and tens of thousands of other chemicals were introduced before 1976, minimal research and testing are available on them.
鈥淎ny chemical introduced after 1976 has to have a baseline of testing鈥攖oxicity testing, epidemiology studies,鈥� says Lesher. 鈥淏ut for the ones that came before 鈥�76, the attitude鈥檚 kind of like, 鈥楾hese chemicals have been around for so long, and nothing bad has happened, so they must be OK.鈥� That鈥檚 not the case when it gets in your drinking water.鈥�
The Elk River spill and the chemical鈥檚 uncertain long-term effects 鈥渇all under the realm of disaster psychology,鈥� says Young. 鈥淚t鈥檚 defined as an unexpected or uncontrollable event: This thing happens to you, and you have no control over it. That鈥檚 where all the stress and anxiety actually comes from.鈥�
Typical reactions to disasters, according to the American Psychological Association, include intense, unpredictable feelings; disrupted eating and sleeping patterns; physical symptoms such as headaches, nausea, or chest pain; and more. According to Young, those effects can become even more pronounced in pregnant women.
鈥淢any pregnant women are already stressed, right?鈥� says Young. 鈥淭hen they can鈥檛 drink the water, but maybe they already did and then they鈥檙e even more stressed. We know that can affect fetal development and sometimes trigger premature labor.鈥�
The psychological toll on residents doesn鈥檛 include the potential health effects of exposure to MCHM, which, as Lesher explains, is essentially unknown. 鈥淭he response was to flush out the water, wait until the concentration of MCHM went down to one milligram per liter, and then lift the ban,鈥� she says. 鈥淭hat decision was based only on lethality. It didn鈥檛 take into consideration long-term effects, such as cancer.鈥�
Lesher, however, trusts that MCHM is probably safe at one milligram per liter. 鈥淭he structure of MCHM is similar to other organic chemicals that have been tested at greater lengths. It鈥檚 not likely to be terribly carcinogenic or toxic.鈥�
Young and Lesher both agree that measures should be taken to make sure spills like this don鈥檛 happen again. They recommend more readily available access to chemicals鈥� basic toxicity levels and better safety measures for containment mechanisms. 鈥淵ou need to be able to say, for certain, that your drinking water is safe. There are a lot of ways to make that happen, without necessarily having to rely on regulation,鈥� says Lesher. The results of proactive efforts could have far-reaching benefits for residents of any area鈥攆or today and the future generations.
