Not too far from Doc, he posted about it over on BS last night.
I read somewhere that the levels at the water intake on the river are in the neighborhood of 2 parts per million, and the concentration for health concerns is 850 parts per million. Haven't confirmed any of that though.
A Brita filter probably won't get rid of the stuff, but basic reverse osmosis should. All the drinking water at home goes through RO because our well water is naturally crappy.
Kinda summarized my thoughts on Facebook after "coal is evil, need more green energy" stuff started popping up...
So this chemical leak in West Virginia affecting the water supply of 300,000 people...
It's being spun to vilify coal. Politicians (almost entirely on the left) will walk right over the people who actually need help to get to their soapbox where they can preach about the evils of the reckless and greedy coal companies, how coal is killing the environment, etc.
How about some objective research...
4-methylcyclohexane methanol is a frothing agent used in coal float washing. It is mixed with water in a big tank where impurities sink and "clean" coal rises. The MSDS sheet is pretty tame. In case of skin contact, wash your skin. Eye contact, flush your eyes. Don't ingest it. The same as or less severe than the instructions on most household cleaners people store under the kitchen sink. It's also flammable in concentrate. So is vodka. Is it bad that it spilled? Yes. Is it going to cause cancer in the 300,000 people who were potentially exposed to it? No. It's not very water soluble, similar to the consistency of vegetable oil. The real question is how it will (or won't) affect the ecology of Elk River. With the quantity that spilled, the relatively low toxicity, and a flowing body of water, it probably won't have any devastating long-term effects. Certainly no BP oil spill. But it will definitely have to be monitored and is not something you want hanging around the potable water supply.
So why is coal washed before burning? Partly to remove excess clay and shale for more efficient burning (less garbage in, less garbage out). But mainly to remove excess sulfur to meet EPA emissions standards. The EPA, particularly under the Obama administration, has tightened air standards, forcing coal burners to take steps to reduce emissions. Washing coal has the benefit of reducing other contaminants, improving combustion efficiency, so it's a two-birds-one-stone situation. Would coal burners be washing coal in the first place if it wasn't for emissions standards? Maybe. The process has been around since the 1970s, though MCHM is a much younger ingredient, replacing some other more volatile chemicals. EPA regulations ("clean coal" initiatives) have all but made it a requirement.
The biggest issue with the story, that some media outlets are getting wrong or intentionally omitting, is that a coal company didn't spill anything. Freedom Industries is a chemical company that does all sorts of things. De-icing agents, water treatment, flotation reagents and other mining chemicals, glycols, sodas, etc. It's their tank and their chemical. The leak apparently exceeded the capacity of their primary containment before it was detected, and evidently they had no secondary containment. So either the chemicals they store were not deemed dangerous enough by the government to warrant secondary containment, or somebody somewhere made a deal for an exemption.
Sooo... Not super dangerous. Used because of government "clean coal" initiatives. The chemical company, not a coal company, dropped the ball.
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:05 pm