{"id":2891,"date":"2014-01-11T16:26:46","date_gmt":"2014-01-11T21:26:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=2891"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:01:31","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:01:31","slug":"failed-tsca-collides-with-the-real-world-in-west-virginia-chemical-spill-this-week","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2014\/01\/11\/failed-tsca-collides-with-the-real-world-in-west-virginia-chemical-spill-this-week\/","title":{"rendered":"Failed TSCA collides with the real world in West Virginia chemical spill this week"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em>,<\/em> is a Senior Scientist. \u00a0Jennifer McPartland, Ph.D.<\/em><\/a>,<\/em> is a Health Scientist.<\/p>\n

[CORRECTION ADDED BELOW 1\/12\/14]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

If the protracted debate over reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) sometimes seems esoteric or abstract, the epic failure of this law could not be better illustrated than by what\u2019s unfolding in Charleston, WV this week.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There, a <\/span>major spill into the Elk River of an obscure chemical used to wash coal<\/span><\/a> has disrupted the lives of hundreds of thousands of residents of the state for what is likely to be days if not weeks or longer.\u00a0 The storage tank from which the chemical has leaked lies upstream from the intake for one of the city\u2019s drinking water treatment plants.\u00a0 Even before the leak had been detected or reported, the chemical was sucked into the plant and distributed through thousands of miles of pipe to homes and businesses.\u00a0 Residents have been told not to drink, bathe or otherwise come into contact with the water \u2013 although some exposure clearly did occur before the warnings were issued.\u00a0 Massive amounts of water are being trucked into the area.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>President Obama declared the situation a national emergency.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

What is particularly maddening and outrageous is that no one \u2013 not local or state officials, not the company that owns the storage tank, not the federal government \u2013 can say anything even close to definitive about what risk the chemical poses to people, even in the short-term, let alone over time.\u00a0 And that\u2019s where the failures of TSCA come into sharp focus.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The chemical in question is <\/span>4-methylcyclohexane methanol, or MCHM<\/span><\/a>; its unique identifying \u201cCAS number\u201d is 34885-03-5.\u00a0 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data indicate it\u2019s made by one company in the U.S.:\u00a0 Eastman Chemical Company (search <\/span>here<\/span><\/a> using the CAS number).\u00a0 The amount of the chemical produced and used in the U.S., however, is not publicly reported because Eastman declared that information to be confidential.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

A <\/span>Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)<\/span><\/a> that summarizes available information on the chemical is available.\u00a0 Have a look at what is says about the hazards of the chemical:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"MCHM<\/a>An <\/span>older MSDS from Eastman<\/span><\/a> for \u201ccrude MCHM\u201d (which includes several other compounds) also contains no health data, although it provides similar warnings.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[CORRECTION 1\/12\/14:\u00a0 This second MSDS from Eastman in fact does reference some toxicity data near the end, including an acute oral toxicity study in rats that identified 825 milligrams per kilogram of body weight as the dose that killed 50% of exposed rats within a short period of time.\u00a0 We were alerted to these data by a commenter on this post (thanks!) and by this article by Ken Ward, Jr.<\/a>, in the <\/em>Charleston <\/i>Gazette.\u00a0 The article indicates the study itself, done in 1990, is not publicly available and is considered proprietary by Eastman.\u00a0 The article also explains that this study is the basis for the derivation of the “safe” level of 1 part per million that government officials have apparently set.\u00a0 Note, however, that this study only examined lethality, and it is highly questionable to seek to apply it to other non-lethal effects.\u00a0 Also note that the more recent MSDS we linked to above does not contain or reference any toxicity data, indicating none are available.\u00a0 This points to a common problem with MSDSs, which are prepared by companies and are often notoriously inaccurate, incomplete and out of date.]<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We\u2019ve searched major databases for information on the hazards of this chemical.\u00a0 None is available.\u00a0 Let me repeat:\u00a0 No health data are available on this chemical<\/i>.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/span>CORRECTION 1\/12\/14:\u00a0 See italicized note above.\u00a0 Despite this new information, it remains accurate to say that no health studies are publicly available on this chemical.]<\/em><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Specifically, we searched the following government sources for any hazard data on MCHM (using the CAS number), and came up empty:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n