Briefing Given 9/29/05
Containing Toxicity with Policy
Michelle Hardy
Graduate Student – UMass Boston
Public Policy 749
Michelle.Hardy001@student.umb.edu
Hurricane Katrina showed us that disaster planning needs to be thorough, rehearsed and followed
through. In the hurricane aftermath, pollution is one of the biggest problems next to the city’s
design. Once the water is pumped out of New Orleans, the people will be left with years of
pollution to clean up and concern for their health.1 The focus has been on the emergency
response plan failure. Although rehashing what went happened during the response is important,
should prevention be looked at more carefully? Can regulations be put in place to prevent
problems in a natural disaster that are not dependent on action in these stressful situations?
Focus of This Briefing
The question that will be discussed here is whether there is a need for policy for the location of
chemical and nuclear plants in relation to natural disaster prone areas. Waste repositories are
discussed and compared in relation to the functioning chemical and nuclear plants. In my
comparison of nuclear and chemical plants, the goal was to see if nuclear materials are more
regulated than chemicals. If there is a lack of regulation, I wanted to know how the agencies
considered the probability and effects of a natural disaster on these plants. Lastly, I will list how
the considerations moved them to implement policy, if it did, and what could be done.
The Agencies Involved and their Domains - Chemical
In the case of chemical regulations, there are many agencies involved in making policy. A
major player in this field is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).2 The EPA is
concerned with regulations and standards related to health and safety; pre-treatment of waste;
release of waste going into the environment; accident clean-up; registration of chemicals;
chemical applications; and licensing handlers and applicators. The EPA is also responsible
for inspecting chemical plants for misuse and neglect. The agency provides maps for the
locations of chemicals and the people associated with them. The chemical manufacturers,
handlers, storage facilities, and registered applicators are all over the map. In the U.S., there
are chemicals tracked for their high production volume (HPV).3 These chemicals are
manufactured or imported into the U.S. in amounts equal to or greater than one million
pounds per year. The list is available to the public. The chemical right-to-know initiative
came into effect in 1986.4 It mandates that suppliers notify the public about the toxic
chemicals they have on-site. The government has made laws so that chemical manufacturers
give the public the information important for disaster planning but, with chemicals, it seems
that most of the regulations and planning pertain to the period during or after the natural
disaster (with the exception of registering the chemicals). There may be some EPA functions
that have been missed on this list but the important point is that they do not regulate the
location of chemical plants near a natural disaster prone area unless the location is for
chemical waste products.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) makes sure that chemicals are moved safely.5 The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)6 makes standards for companies and
employees related to employee safety. The local agencies and organizations seem to be
involved with granting the permits for industrial chemical company locations. These local
entities include the Governors, state agencies, tribal councils, unions, and concerned citizen
organizations.7
The American Chemistry Council, which was formally the Chemical Manufacturers of
America, is the voice of the chemical industry across America. The American Chemistry
Council is an example of a non-governmental agency helping to enforce government
regulations. The Council helped establish CHEMTREC8 (Chemical Transportation
Emergency Center), a public service hotline for fire fighters, law enforcement, and other
emergency responders to obtain information and assistance for emergency incidents involving
chemicals and hazardous materials. Shippers of hazardous materials can comply with US
federal and state safety regulations by registering with CHEMTREC. CHEMTREC is a 24/7
resource that coordinates and communicates a broad range of critical information that may be
needed by emergency responders in mitigating a hazardous material related incident.
The Agencies Involved and their Domains - Nuclear
The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Transportation (DOT) enact the nuclear
regulations.9 There are several organizations that act as advisors and provide oversight. These
include the National Academy of Sciences; the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards; the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board; the NRC, state and project scientists;
the governor; city officials; tribal councils; and concerned citizens. This list does not contain all
the people and agencies involved but the important fact is that there are agencies that make the
regulations, others that provide expert advice, and oversight, and still others that fight the
decisions if they do not like them.
The locations for the nuclear power plants are limited to areas where there is a large source of
water and proximity to the power grid or a large population.10 The water source is needed to
keep the reactor cool.11 Nuclear materials need more safeguards than chemical materials because
their breakdown is slower when contained, the danger to humans is more immediate and far
reaching, and they persist in the environment longer.
Nuclear waste is stored near the active facilities also. It is considered short-term storage and can
present a problem because it is not as heavily regulated as the long-term waste.12 Radioactive
material may be in line to be recycled. Therefore, it needs to be stored, moved, and otherwise
handled which gives it a greater chance to be released. Nuclear waste persists for many, many
years in the environment. This is a concern and warrants strict regulations concerning long-term
waste repositories. There are things that companies can do to make the waste less reactive. For
example, they can transform it into glass. As a glass, it can be stored for longer periods of time
without as much worry.13
Did They Consider Natural Disasters?
The agencies considered natural disasters when planning for waste site repositories (long-term
storage) locations but not for functioning chemical plants (short-term storage).14 We can never
be sure what we will need to control for in the future so the worst has to be expected when
storing hazardous wastes for long periods of time. This is probably why they regulate waste
more. A canister that is perfectly safe in a dry warehouse with proper ventilation may perform
much differently if it comes in contact with molten lava. Also, the degradation of all the
chemicals may not be known in all conditions. It may be converted to some more lethal vapor or
something else unexpected. The chemical companies may not pay close attention to chemicals
that can no longer make them money if they are not inspired to do this. A famous example of
neglected waste that started the formation of the superfund is Love Canal in New York.
Although the government knows about the natural hazards, they did not disallow active chemical
and nuclear plants from locating near them. There are several reasons why this is probably true.
The chemicals are needed all over the country. Transporting chemicals is probably more
hazardous statistically than locating them near a natural disaster prone area. It is difficult to find
enough locations that would be considered safe for all disasters given the amount of companies.
Nuclear plants need certain conditions to be safe and effective in operation so their location is
limited. Are these reasons good enough if a city is destroyed as Chernobyl15 was or almost
destroyed as with the Three Mile Island16 accident? Chernobyl and Three Mile Island’s
accidents were not due to natural disaster but the same breakdown in the containment vessels
system could have been started by a natural disaster. Lastly, we can look at New Orleans again.
There are chemical plants in the floodplain of New Orleans.17 Soon we will know just how
much damage they have caused and have to decide if we still want them there.
What do the Regulations Cover?
The functioning chemical companies must:
 Register their chemicals with the government and report them to the public.
 Comply with regulations regarding pre-treatment before their contaminated water reaches
the sewers and groundwater.
 Comply with regulations regarding employees handling the chemicals.
 Comply with regulations regarding employees using the chemicals.
 Comply with regulations regarding releasing chemicals into the environment.
 Comply with regulations regarding the transport of their chemicals
 Comply with regulations regarding the packaging of their chemicals
 Comply with regulations regarding the sale of their chemicals
 Keep short-term storage of chemicals safe in accordance with regulations.18
They do not have to locate the facility in a particular place unless the state or local zoning board
deems it necessary – usually due to water table concerns or dangers due to the type of roadways
near the plant.
These are the considerations for the locations of long-term waste disposal repositories.
 Time to travel to groundwater
 Weather
 Fault and earthquake hazard
 Site intrusion for theft of natural elements
 Site intrusion for chemicals or nuclear product
 Transportation
 Site ownership
These criteria need to be reported in their application for a site license.19,20 At first look, it would
seem that chemical plants should be far away from the floodplain, fault line, or landslide area as
with the repositories. But, it just isn’t feasible given the amount needed to supply societies
chemical needs and the amount of hazards in the country. It might be more feasible for nuclear
power plants if they did not require the large water source and a community to which they
deliver the energy. The government can control the waste by regulating its disposal and
condensing it to safe zones. However, there have been situations where the strict regulations
have been loosened for political gain or just to get something completed when the regulations are
difficult to uphold.21
We, as a society, have to be careful of the choices we make for energy and the products in our
lives. We have to understand the risks and make good decisions regarding their manufacture,
use and disposal. If we do not understand what the situations are, we cannot fight for policy that
is in our children’s and their children’s best interests. Location may not be the whole issue; our
need for the facilities should be considered also.
Examples Discussed During the Briefing
Ogden Defense Depository, Utah22
Savannah River Site, South Carolina23
Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada24
Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, Georgia25
EPA Chemical Handlers’ Map26
EPA Superfund Site Map27
1
CNN, (8/29/05). Expert: Katrina could unleash disaster:
www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/28/Katrina.doomsday/
2 Environmental Protection Agency: www.epa.gov home page.
3 Environmental Protection Agency High Production Volume Challenge Program:
www.epa.gov/chemtrk/volchall.htm
4 EPA Right-to-Know Act: www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri03/index.htm
5
Department of Transportation: http://hazmat.dot.gov/regs/register/register.htm
6 Occupational Safety and Health Agency: www.osha.gov.
7 City of Boston: www.cityofboston.gov/DND/obd/BRG/DI_Step1.asp
8 Caboara, M. (2004). Preventing Chemical Disasters. The Environment Times:
www.environmenttimes.net/article.cfm?pageID=141
9 Mahijani, Arun PhD (Dec 2, 2003). Yucca Mountain: An Example Not to Follow. Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research: http://www.ieer.org/comments/waste/yuccaitaly.html
10 Department of Energy Savannah River Site, SC: http://www.srs.gov/general/about/where1.htm
11 Ilan Lipper and Jon Stone, (accessed 10/23/05). Nuclear Energy and Society:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/nuclear.htm
12
GreenvilleOnline.com (July 20, 2004). Nuclear Waste Setback for S.C.:
http://greenvilleonline.com/news/opinion/2004/07/20/2004072035505.htm
13 Department of Energy Savannah River Site, SC:
http://www.srs.gov/general/programs/solidification/index.htm
14
Dawson, B. (2002). Federal Board Concludes Current Chemical Regulations Are Inadequate. Report from
the Center for Public Policy.
15
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (accessed 9/29/05). Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island:
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
16
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (accessed 9/29/05). Fact Sheet on the Accident at Chernobyl Nuclear
Power Plant: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fschernobyl.html
17
CNN (8/29/05). Expert: Katrina could unleash disaster:
www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/0828/Katrina/doomsday/
18 Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/complianceenforcement.html
19 Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects (1998), State of Nevada and Related Findings Indicating that the
Proposed Yucca Mountain Site is Not Suitable for Development as a Repository:
http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/nuctome2.htm
20
Nevada Seismological Laboratory (accessed 9/27/05). FAQs on Seismicity Near Yucca Mountain:
www.seismo.unr.edu/htdocs/ym-faq.html
21 Kamps, Kevin and Mariotte, Michael (March 4, 2000). Stop DOE From Changing the Rules in the Middle
of the Game on the Proposed Yucca Mountain Dump: http://www.nirs.org/alerts/03-04-2000/1
22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Region 8 – Completed NPL Sites: Ogden Defense Depot:
www.epa.gov/region 8/superfund/sites/ut/ddou.html
23 U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Site: http://www.srs.gov/general/srs-home.html
24 Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (accessed 9/27/05). Yucca Mountain Project:
www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/index.shtml
25 Carroll, G.; Lyman, Edwin S.; and Curran, Diane (Dec 13, 2001). Georgia Environmental Group Wins
Hearing on Plutonium Fuel (MOX) Plant Proposed for DOE’s Savannah River Site:
www.nci.org/01NCI/12/pr-gane.htm
26 EPA EnviroMapper StoreFront: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/em/
27 National Priorities List Sites in the United States: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm
Additional Resources
Dymon, U.J. (accessed 9/29/05). Mapping – The Missing Link in Reducing Risk Under SARA III:
www.piercelaw.edu/risk/vol5/fall/dymon.htm
EPA History of Mixed Waste: http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/mixed-waste/mw_pg4.htm
Environmental Report for the Exelon Generation Company, LLC Early Site Permit, DEL-096-Rev0.
Government of Japan (2005). National Report of Japan on Disaster Reduction for the World Conference on
Disaster Reduction, Kobe-Hyogo, Japan.
Okumura, T., MD, PhD; Ninomiya, N. MD, PhD.; Ohta, M., MD, PhD. (2003). The Chemical Disaster
Response System in Japan. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 18(3), 189-92.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (April 21, 1998). Experts Disagree on Safety of Gaseous Emissions:
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news/torvik/edit01.htm
U.S. Department of Energy, Overview of Generation IV Technology Roadmap:
http://www.energy.gov/engine/basicSearch.do
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005). Montrose Chemical Corporation California EPA
ID#CAD008242711.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (accessed 9/29/05). §60.131 General Design Criteria for the Geologic
Repository Operations Area.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (accessed 9/29/05). §60.132 Additional Design Criteria for Surface
Facilities in the Geologic Repository Operations.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (accessed 9/29/05). §60.133 Additional Design Criteria for the
Underground Facility.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (accessed 9/29/05). Subpart B – Licenses Pre-application Review
§60.15 Site Characterization.