Assessment of Impact and Recovery Needs in Communities Affected By the Elk River Chemical Spill — West Virginia, April 2014

Tuesday, June 16, 2015: 4:30 PM
Back Bay D, Sheraton Hotel
Ethan D. Fechter-Leggett , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Sherry Burrer , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Amy Wolkin , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Tesfaye Bayleyegn , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Rebecca Noe , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Joy Hsu , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Nicole Nakata , ORISE Fellow, Atlanta, GA
Lauren Lewis , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Miguella P. Mark-Carew , West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Charleston, WV
Carrie A. Thomas , West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Charleston, WV
Danae Bixler , West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Charleston, WV
Erica R. Thomasson , West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Charleston, WV
Loretta Haddy , West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Charleston, WV

BACKGROUND:  On January 9, 2014, 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol and a mixture of propylene glycol phenyl ethers spilled into the Elk River near Charleston, West Virginia, contaminating water supplies for approximately 120,000 households. A “Do Not Use” water order covered nine counties for up to 10 days. In April 2014 a Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) was conducted to assess the communities’ perceived health effects of the chemical spill, alternative sources of water, information sources, and public water supply use.

METHODS:  A representative sample of households within the affected area was selected using two-stage cluster sampling (30 clusters, 7 households per cluster). Interview teams administered a questionnaire to each household. We used Epi Info 7 to generate weighted percentages of households within the affected area.

RESULTS:  We enrolled 171 households (81% completion rate). Of those, 22% (95% confidence interval = 14%–29%) in the three months following the spill had at least one person with health issues they thought were related to the spill, 74% (64%–85%) did not have 3-day alternative water supplies for each household member and pet, and 58% (49%–67%) considered television the most reliable source of information about the spill. At the time of the CASPER, only 36% (28%–44%) believed their water supply was safe, compared to 86% (80%–91%) before the spill, and 34% (27%–40%) reported drinking their household’s water.

CONCLUSIONS:  To assist recovery efforts and improve future responses, recommendations included promoting availability of health and mental health services to aid affected communities, encouraging households to maintain Federal Emergency Management Agency–recommended 3-day water supplies, and increasing community education, especially through television, to address the public’s water concerns.