Quantcast
Home » News » Justice
Home » News » Justice

W.Va. water tests encouraging after chemical spill

First Published Jan 12 2014 05:08PM      Last Updated Jan 12 2014 05:10 pm

DRY BRANCH, W.Va. • For Bonnie Wireman, the white plastic bag covering her kitchen faucet is a reminder that she can’t drink the water.

The 81-year-old woman placed it there after forgetting several times the tap water was tainted after a coal processing chemical leaked into the area’s water supply. Every time she turned on the water, she’d quickly stop and clean her hands with peroxide — just to make sure she was safe.

The widow of a coal miner, Wireman is frustrated about the chemical spill that’s deprived 300,000 West Virginians of clean tap water for four days: "I’m really angry."



But as quickly as she said it, she wanted to make one thing clear: She didn’t blame the coal or chemical industries for the spill.

"I hope this doesn’t hurt coal," said Wireman, who lives in an area known around the state as Chemical Valley because of all the plants nearby. "Too many West Virginians depend on coal and chemicals. We need those jobs."

And that’s the dilemma for many West Virginians: The industries provide thousands of good paying jobs but also pose risks for the communities surrounding them, such as the chemical spill or coal mine disasters. The current emergency began Thursday after a foaming agent used in coal processing escaped from a Freedom Industries plant in Charleston and seeped into the Elk River. Since then, residents have been ordered not to use tap water for anything but flushing toilets.

Gov. Earl Tomblin said Sunday water tests were encouraging, but he didn’t give a timetable for when people might be able to use water again.

"The numbers look good. They are very encouraging," Tomblin said.

Maj. Gen. James Hoyer, of the West Virginia National Guard, said testing near the water treatment facility has consistently been below 1 part per million, a key step officials needed before they can begin the next step of flushing the system.

West Virginia is a picturesque, mountainous state, with deep rivers and streams that cut through lush valleys. But along the twisting, rural roads there are signs of the state’s industrial past and present: Chemical plant storage tanks rise from the valley floor. Coal mines — with heavy equipment and steel structures used to extract and then transport the fuel — are part of the rural landscape. White plumes of smoke drifting from factories offer a stark contrast to the state’s natural beauty.

"You won’t find many people in these parts who are against these industries. But we have to do a better job of regulating them," said Wireman’s son, Danny Scott, 59, a retired General Electric worker who has been helping take care of his mother. "The state has a lot to offer. We don’t want to destroy it."

West Virginia is the second-largest coal producing state behind Wyoming, with 538 mines and 26,619 people. The state has about 150 chemical companies that employ 12,000 workers.

Over the years, there have been accidents in both industries that have killed workers and harmed the environment. In January 2010, a worker died at a DuPont plant after inhaling a lethal dose of phosgene, which was used as a chemical weapon during World War I and today is used as a building block in synthesis of pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds. An explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine killed 29 people in 2010.

Coal is critical to West Virginia’s economy. Strong coal prices and demand proved vital to the state budget during and after the national recession, from 2009 through 2011.

In November 2009, the state’s unemployment rate was 8.4 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Four years later — November 2013 — the unemployment rate was down to 6.1 percent, below the national rate of 7 percent.

In Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s recent State-of-the-State speech, he touted the chemical industry, saying it was among those that grew substantially over the last year.

The spill that tainted the water supply involved a chemical used in coal processing. But it didn’t involve a coal mine — and that’s a point state officials are trying to convey to the public.

When asked if the emergency is one of the risks of being a state that relies heavily on the coal industry, Tomblin quickly responded: "This was not a coal company incident, this was a chemical company incident."

 

 

» Next page... 2 3 Single page

 

 

comments powered by Disqus