Natural Hazards

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 143–152

Natech risk and management: an assessment of the state of the art

  • Laura J. Steinberg
  • Hatice Sengul
  • Ana Maria Cruz
Original Paper

Abstract

The present state-of-the-art for natech risk and management is discussed. Examples of recent natechs include catastrophic oil spills associated with Hurricane Katrina and hazardous chemical releases in Europe during the heavy floods of 2002. Natechs create difficult challenges for emergency responders due to the geographical extent of the natural disaster, the likelihood of simultaneous releases, emergency personnel being preoccupied with response to the natural disaster, mitigation measures failing due to the effects of the natural disaster, and others. Recovery from natechs may be much more difficult than for “normal” chemical accidents, as the economic and social conditions of the industrial facility and the surrounding community may have been drastically altered by the natural disaster. Potential safeguards against natechs include adoption of stricter design criteria, chemical process safeguards, community land use planning, disaster mitigation and response planning, and sustainable industrial processes, but these safeguards are only sporadically applied. Ultimately, the public must engage in a comprehensive discussion of acceptable risks for natechs.

Keywords

Natechs Chemical accidents Industrial accidents Hurricanes Hurricane Katrina Mitigation Response 

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (2002) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE 7-02, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonioni G, Spadoni G, Cozzani V (2007) A methodology for the quantitative risk assessment of major accidents triggered by seismic events. J Hazard Mater 147(1–2):48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BP U.S. Refineries Independent Safety Review Panel (2007) Available on the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board website: http://www.csb.gov/completed_investigations/docs/Baker_panel_report.pdf, accessed March 2, 2007
  4. Brown M (2005) St. Bernard oil spill is wider than was thought. Times-Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana, December 6, 2005Google Scholar
  5. California Office of Emergency Services (1998) California accidental release prevention program. Final regulations. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 4.5. Governor’s Office of Emergency ServicesGoogle Scholar
  6. Cruz AM, Steinberg LJ (2005) Industry preparedness for hazardous materials accidents during the Kocaeli earthquake. Earthq Spectra 21(2):285–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cruz AM, Laura JS, Vetere-Arellano AL (2006) Emerging issues in natech disaster risk management in Europe. J Risk Res 9(5):483–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2002) Floods in Czech Republic. Information Sheet No. 5, Directorate General Environment, Civil Protection Unit, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. Fabbrocino G, Iervolino I, Orlando F, Salzano E (2005) Quantitative risk analysis of oil storage facilities in seismic areas. J Hazard Mater 123:61–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haddow GD, Bullock JA (2003) Introduction to emergency management. Butterworth-Heinemann, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  11. International Building Code (2006) International Code Council, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Knutson TR, Tuleya RE (2004) Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. J Clim 17(18):3477–3495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lindell MK, Perry RW (1997) Hazardous materials releases in the Northridge earthquake: implications for seismic risk assessment. Risk Anal 17(2):147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mannan S (2005a) Lee’s loss prevention in the process industries, 3rd edn. Elsevier, New York, Appendix 5, pp A5.1–A5.11Google Scholar
  15. Mannan S (2005b) Lee’s loss prevention in the process industries, 3rd edn. Elsevier, New York, Appendix 32, pp A32.1–A32.3Google Scholar
  16. McConnaughey J (2007) Judge approves deal over Katrina-related urban oil spill. Associated Press, January 30, 2007Google Scholar
  17. Menoni S (2001) Chains of damages and failures in a Metropolitan environment: some observations on the Kobe earthquake in 1995. J Hazard Mater 86:101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Orum P (2006) Preventing toxic terrorism: how some chemical facilities are removing danger to American communities. Center for American Progress, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Region 1 LEPC (1999) California accidental release prevention program: implementation guidance document. Region 1 LEPC AA Sub-Committee, California accidental release program guidance task groupGoogle Scholar
  20. Sengul H (2005) Hazard characterization of joint natural and technological disasters (natechs) in the United States using federal databases. Masters Thesis, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tulane UniversityGoogle Scholar
  21. Showalter PS, Myers MF (1994) Natural disasters in the United States as release agents of oil, chemicals, or radiological materials between 1980–1999: analysis and recommendations. Risk Anal 14(2):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Steinberg LJ (2004) Natechs in the United States: experience, safeguards, and gaps. In: Velere-Arellano AL, Cruz AM, Nordvik JP, Pisano F (eds) Proceedings: NEDIES workshop—analysis of natech disaster management, Report EUR 21054EN, United Nations/European Union—Joint Research Center, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  23. Steinberg LJ, Cruz AM (2004) When natural and technological disasters collide: lessons from the Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999. Nat Hazard Rev 5(3):121–130Google Scholar
  24. Walsh B, Cannizaro S (2003) Group is urging oil refineries to stop using deadly chemical. Times Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 15Google Scholar
  25. Young I (2007) Legacy of toulouse disaster still weighs heavy. Chemweek.com, May 14, 2003. Available at: http://www.chemweek.com, accessed on March 2, 2007

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura J. Steinberg
    • 1
  • Hatice Sengul
    • 2
  • Ana Maria Cruz
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental and Civil EngineeringSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Environmental Science and PolicyUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.European Commission, Joint Research CenterIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations