Comment pubs.acs.org/est
Responding to Crisis: The West Virginia Chemical Spill
A
contamination. Whelton’s team took water samples from the homes of affected residents to examine the chemical’s absorption and removal from plastic water pipes. These researchers are already sharing their initial findings with the broader research community and with government agencies and other organizations. They are also identifying fundamental knowledge gaps and issues for future investigations. Meanwhile, West Virginia residents are still struggling to address their basic needs. Ms. Krista Bryson, a Ph.D. candidate at Ohio State University, closely monitored the unfolding events in her home state of West Virginia and chronicled them in a new blog (http://westvirginiawatercrisis.wordpress.com). Weeks after the event, she said, “My dad is traveling to Kentucky to pick up a truckload of water to bring back to their store and distribute [...] but my parents anticipate running out of water immediately.” Nongovernmental organizations have also stepped in. Ms. Johanna de Gaffenreid and her colleagues at the West Virginia Clean Water Hub have coordinated deliveries of water and supplies to affected communities, and they have worked tirelessly to provide accurate information to the people in and around Charleston. De Gaffenreid said, “We know that the water crisis in West Virginia will not end (simply) when the water in the Kanawha valley stops smelling like licorice.” Research in environmental science and engineering eventually will allow us to understand what happened after the chemical leak in West Virginia. Wherever there is confusion and a lack of knowledge, scientific investigations can provide clear, critical information. Like Dietrich, Weidhaas, and Whelton, researchers must remain poised to respond quickly to environmental crises and answer immediate and long-term questions that directly impact people’s needs.
s environmental engineers, we are equal parts stewards for public health and for the environment. We often answer questions never before asked or possibly even considered. The recent chemical spill in West Virginia is an example when this role was immediately clear. On January 9, 2014, in Charleston, West Virginia, approximately 10 000 gallons of chemicals used in coal processing and cleaning leaked from the storage tanks of Freedom Industries, Inc. The tank contained primarily 4methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) as well as the solvent glycol ether. An unknown quantity of the leaked chemicals then flowed into the nearby Elk River. This location on Elk River is approximately 1.5 miles upstream from a water treatment plant serving 15% of the West Virginia population. Unfortunately, before anyone at the plant was notified, the chemicals entered the plant through the water intake and contaminated the main water source for West Virginia American Water in Charleston. After discovering the contamination, the State issued “A Do Not Use Order” for 300 000 people in nine counties of West Virginia, advising them not to use the water for drinking, bathing, cooking, or clothes washing. Essentially, only toilet flushing was allowed. Since then, residents of the affected areas have had many questions about the safety of their water. However, no definitive answers about water safety are available, despite the involvement of the West Virginia government, the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection, West Virginia American Water, and Freedom Industries. MCHM is one of more than 60 000 chemicals grandfathered into the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. No human health data on MCHM exists, and very little is known about its interactions with other chemicals or its behavior in the natural environment. Within a week of this dire event, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Environmental Engineering Program received several proposals for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grants to study the problem. The NSF RAPID funding mechanism is used for proposals having a severe urgency with regard to availability of or access to data, facilities, or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events. NSF quickly funded three RAPID projects, led by Dr. Andrea Dietrich at Virginia Tech, by Dr. Jennifer Weidhaas of West Virginia University, and by Dr. Andrew Whelton of the University of South Alabama. NSF coordinated the scope of the three projects and established communications between the researchers, aiming to get as much data as possible as soon as possible. Having additional support from their universities, all three research teams launched their investigations within a week of the chemical spill. Dietrich’s team began the research needed to model the environmental fate of MCHM. Weidhaas’s group began sampling the water and sediments to assess the extent of the © 2014 American Chemical Society
William J. Cooper
■
NSF Program Director, Environmental Engineering
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Published: March 4, 2014 3095
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es500949g | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 3095−3095
Responding to Crisis: The West Virginia Chemical Spill
A
contamination. Whelton’s team took water samples from the homes of affected residents to examine the chemical’s absorption and removal from plastic water pipes. These researchers are already sharing their initial findings with the broader research community and with government agencies and other organizations. They are also identifying fundamental knowledge gaps and issues for future investigations. Meanwhile, West Virginia residents are still struggling to address their basic needs. Ms. Krista Bryson, a Ph.D. candidate at Ohio State University, closely monitored the unfolding events in her home state of West Virginia and chronicled them in a new blog (http://westvirginiawatercrisis.wordpress.com). Weeks after the event, she said, “My dad is traveling to Kentucky to pick up a truckload of water to bring back to their store and distribute [...] but my parents anticipate running out of water immediately.” Nongovernmental organizations have also stepped in. Ms. Johanna de Gaffenreid and her colleagues at the West Virginia Clean Water Hub have coordinated deliveries of water and supplies to affected communities, and they have worked tirelessly to provide accurate information to the people in and around Charleston. De Gaffenreid said, “We know that the water crisis in West Virginia will not end (simply) when the water in the Kanawha valley stops smelling like licorice.” Research in environmental science and engineering eventually will allow us to understand what happened after the chemical leak in West Virginia. Wherever there is confusion and a lack of knowledge, scientific investigations can provide clear, critical information. Like Dietrich, Weidhaas, and Whelton, researchers must remain poised to respond quickly to environmental crises and answer immediate and long-term questions that directly impact people’s needs.
s environmental engineers, we are equal parts stewards for public health and for the environment. We often answer questions never before asked or possibly even considered. The recent chemical spill in West Virginia is an example when this role was immediately clear. On January 9, 2014, in Charleston, West Virginia, approximately 10 000 gallons of chemicals used in coal processing and cleaning leaked from the storage tanks of Freedom Industries, Inc. The tank contained primarily 4methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) as well as the solvent glycol ether. An unknown quantity of the leaked chemicals then flowed into the nearby Elk River. This location on Elk River is approximately 1.5 miles upstream from a water treatment plant serving 15% of the West Virginia population. Unfortunately, before anyone at the plant was notified, the chemicals entered the plant through the water intake and contaminated the main water source for West Virginia American Water in Charleston. After discovering the contamination, the State issued “A Do Not Use Order” for 300 000 people in nine counties of West Virginia, advising them not to use the water for drinking, bathing, cooking, or clothes washing. Essentially, only toilet flushing was allowed. Since then, residents of the affected areas have had many questions about the safety of their water. However, no definitive answers about water safety are available, despite the involvement of the West Virginia government, the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection, West Virginia American Water, and Freedom Industries. MCHM is one of more than 60 000 chemicals grandfathered into the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. No human health data on MCHM exists, and very little is known about its interactions with other chemicals or its behavior in the natural environment. Within a week of this dire event, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Environmental Engineering Program received several proposals for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) grants to study the problem. The NSF RAPID funding mechanism is used for proposals having a severe urgency with regard to availability of or access to data, facilities, or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events. NSF quickly funded three RAPID projects, led by Dr. Andrea Dietrich at Virginia Tech, by Dr. Jennifer Weidhaas of West Virginia University, and by Dr. Andrew Whelton of the University of South Alabama. NSF coordinated the scope of the three projects and established communications between the researchers, aiming to get as much data as possible as soon as possible. Having additional support from their universities, all three research teams launched their investigations within a week of the chemical spill. Dietrich’s team began the research needed to model the environmental fate of MCHM. Weidhaas’s group began sampling the water and sediments to assess the extent of the © 2014 American Chemical Society
William J. Cooper
■
NSF Program Director, Environmental Engineering
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Published: March 4, 2014 3095
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es500949g | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 3095−3095
