Advertisement

The Natech: Right-to-Know as Space-Time Puzzle

  • Gregg P. MaceyEmail author
Part of the Risk, Governance and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 19)

Abstract

Federal environmental law began with a plea: that agencies and other parties consider, and mitigate, the environmental impacts of their work. The task remains unfulfilled given the nature of those impacts: They feature system effects, nonlinear interactions, feedback loops, discontinuous and threshold dynamics, and uncertain boundaries. The administrative state has limited means to address them. It relies on artificial constructs to assess and respond to impacts, such as worst-case scenarios, reasonable foreseeability, and scales that are either inappropriately narrow (“linked” projects) or large and vague (“program-level”). Right-to-know laws share this shortcoming, a product of the disasters that led to their enactment and the laws to which they were appended. In place for a quarter century, the framework is under renewed scrutiny. Recent accidents reveal risks from new and repurposed infrastructure, and point to chemical listing, threshold, labeling, and other potential reforms. But these are incremental adjustments to a baseline approach to chemical risk that operates under longstanding temporal and spatial constraints. Right-to-know privileges annualized data and the state of knowledge shortly after a release beyond a facility boundary. These choices limit data available for emergency response, particularly when chemical processing, oil and gas production, and other infrastructure are placed under stress. To explore how right-to-know laws can better account for system effects, I focus not on the black swan events or worst-case scenarios that shape new legislation and consume an outsized portion of administrative resources, but rather on increasingly common, geographically dispersed, and temporally discontinuous infrastructure stressors known as natechs. A natech event occurs when a natural hazard such as a storm, earthquake, or flood triggers technological accidents that result in the release of chemical agents into the environment. Natechs share several traits, including simultaneous releases, cascading and domino effects, and scattered or inaccessible infrastructure. They often occur under “best case” conditions, due to the weakness of the natural hazard trigger or the readiness of infrastructure in its path. They lead to non-state responses that identify, reconstruct, and track cumulative impacts that would be lost to regularized reporting at discrete scales. These non-state responses ensure situational awareness in emergent spaces, irrespective of facility boundary. And they suggest event sequences that can be leveraged for hazard mitigation. By focusing on a growing inventory of mundane infrastructure stressors, natechs can serve as proxies for some of the cumulative, delayed, distributed, and nonlinear impacts that environmental laws find difficult to address.

Keywords

Material Safety Data Sheet Material Safety Data Sheet Chemical Release Penalty Default Natech Event 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(g)(8)Google Scholar
  2. 40 C.F.R. § 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B), 70.6(g)(3)(iv)Google Scholar
  3. 40 C.F.R. § 122.41(I)(6)Google Scholar
  4. 42 U.S.C. § 7404Google Scholar
  5. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)Google Scholar
  6. 42 U.S.C. § 9603(a)Google Scholar
  7. 42 U.S.C. § 11001Google Scholar
  8. 42 U.S.C. § 11002(a)(2)Google Scholar
  9. 42 U.S.C. § 11003Google Scholar
  10. 42 U.S.C. § 11004Google Scholar
  11. 42 U.S.C. § 11004(a)Google Scholar
  12. 42 U.S.C. § 11004(a)–(b)Google Scholar
  13. 42 U.S.C. § 11004(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (b)(1)Google Scholar
  14. 42 U.S.C. § 11004(b)(1)Google Scholar
  15. 42 U.S.C. § 11004(b)(2)Google Scholar
  16. 42 U.S.C. § 11004(c)Google Scholar
  17. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11021-11022Google Scholar
  18. 42 U.S.C. § 11021(a)(1)Google Scholar
  19. 42 U.S.C. § 11021(a)(3)Google Scholar
  20. 42 U.S.C. § 11022Google Scholar
  21. 42 U.S.C. § 11022(a)(3)Google Scholar
  22. 42 U.S.C. § 11023(b)(1)(A)Google Scholar
  23. 42 U.S.C. § 11023(F)(1)(A)Google Scholar
  24. 42 U.S.C. § 11049(4)Google Scholar
  25. 49 C.F.R. § 171.15(a)Google Scholar
  26. Aagaard T (2014) Environmental law outside the canon. Indiana Law J 89:1239Google Scholar
  27. Abrams R, Ward D (1990) Prospects for safer communities: emergency response, community right to know, and prevention of chemical accidents. Harv Environ Law Rev 14(1):135–188Google Scholar
  28. Adgate J, Goldstein B, McKenzie L (2014) Potential public health hazards, exposures, and health effects from unconventional natural gas development. Environ Sci Tech 48(15):8307–8320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2010) Health consultation: public health implications of ambient air exposures as measured in rural and urban oil and gas development areas. Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  30. Antonioni G, Bonvinici S, Spadoni V (2009) Development of a framework for the risk assessment of Natech accidental events. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 4(9):1442–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Babcock H (2007) National security and environmental laws: a clear and present danger? Virginia Environ Law J 25:105–159Google Scholar
  32. Bachand T (2014) Keystone mapping project. http://keystone.steamingmules.com. Accessed 22 Dec 2014
  33. Bardach E, Pugliaresi L (1977) The environmental impact statement vs. the real world. Public Interest 49:22–38Google Scholar
  34. Belke J, Dietrich D (2005) The post-Bhopal and post-9/11 transformations in chemical emergency prevention and response policy in the United States. J Loss Prev Process Ind 18(4):375–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Buzbee W (2003) Recognizing the regulatory commons: a theory of regulatory gaps. Iowa Law Rev 89:1Google Scholar
  36. CalARP Program Seismic Guidance Committee (2014) Guidance for California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program seismic assessments. http://www.caloes.ca.gov/HazardousMaterials/Pages/California-Accidental-Release-Prevention-(CalARP).aspx. Accessed 30 Dec 2014
  37. Coglianese C, Zeckhauser R, Parson E (2004) Seeking truth for power: informational strategy and regulatory policymaking. Minn Law Rev 89:277Google Scholar
  38. Colborn T (2011) Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17(5):1039–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Colborn T, Schultz K, Herrick L et al (2013) An exploratory study of air quality near natural gas operations. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 20(1):86–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2014) A staff report to the Commissioners: lessons learned in the Front Range Flood of September 2013. COGCC, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  41. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (1980), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601–9675Google Scholar
  42. Connors J, Lei S, Kelly M (2012) Citizen science in the age of neogeography: utilizing volunteered geographic information for environmental monitoring. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 102(6):1267–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Cooper WJ (2014) Responding to crisis: the West Virginia chemical spill. Environ Sci Tech 48(6):3095–3095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Corona Environmental Consulting, LLC (2014) WV TAP final report. Scituate, MAGoogle Scholar
  45. Cozzani V, Campedel M, Renni E (2010) Industrial accidents triggered by flood events: analysis of past accidents. J Hazard Mater 175(1):501–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Cruz A, Krausmann E (2009) Hazardous-materials releases from offshore oil and gas facilities and emergency response following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. J Loss Prev Process Ind 22(1):59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (1986) Pub. Law No. 99-499, 100 Stat. 1728 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 11011–11050)Google Scholar
  48. Environmental Protection Agency (1999) Enforcement response policy for sections 304, 311, and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act and section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. EPCRA § 313, 42 U.S.C. § 11023Google Scholar
  50. FracTracker Alliance (2013a) FracTracker alliance annual report. Camp Hill, PA. http://www.fractracker.org/about-us/annual-report. Accessed 22 Dec 2014
  51. FracTracker Alliance (2013b) USGS stream gages helpful in monitoring risks in shale-gas extraction regions. Camp Hill, PA. http://www.fractracker.org/2013/10/usgs-stream-monitoring. Accessed 29 Dec 2014
  52. Frittelli J, Parfomak P, Ramseur J et al (2014) U.S. rail transportation of crude oil: background and issues for congress. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  53. Frost L, Ramesh D (2013) Texas fertilizer disaster raises safety, regulatory concerns. Chem Week 175:11 (22 Apr 2013)Google Scholar
  54. Fung A, O’Rourke D (2000) Reinventing environmental regulation from the grassroots up: explaining and expanding the success of the Toxics Release Inventory. Environ Manage 25(2):115–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Gosman S (2013) Reflecting risk: chemical disclosure and hydraulic fracturing. Georgia Law Rev 48(1):83Google Scholar
  56. Gulf Monitoring Consortium (2012) Lessons from Hurricane Isaac: Gulf Coast coal and petrochemical facilities still not storm ready. Gulf Monitoring Consortium, Shepherdstown, WVGoogle Scholar
  57. Hurricane Isaac Batters Gulf Coast Industry (2012) Chem Eng 10:25Google Scholar
  58. Interview with Executive Director, Fractivist, in Fort Collins, Colorado (2 May 2014)Google Scholar
  59. Interview with former Environmental Protection Agency official, in Denver, CO (3 Apr 2014)Google Scholar
  60. Kaelin D (2014) Process safety: a need for change. Chem Eng Today 2014(5):38Google Scholar
  61. Karkkainen B (2001) Information as environmental regulation: TRI and performance benchmarking, precursor to a new paradigm? Geophys J Roy Astron Soc 89:257Google Scholar
  62. Karkkainen B (2002) Toward a smarter NEPA: monitoring and managing government’s environmental performance. Columbia Law Rev 102:903–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Karkkainen B (2003) Adaptive ecosystem management and regulatory defaults: toward a bounded pragmatism. Minn Law Rev 87:943MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  64. Krausmann E, Cozzani V, Salzano E et al (2011) Industrial accidents triggered by natural hazards: an emerging issue. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11(3):921–929CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  65. Krausmann E, Cruz A (2013) Impact of the 11 March 2011, Great East Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Nat Hazards 67(2):811–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kurgan L (2013) Close up at a distance: mapping, technology, and politics. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  67. Lindell M, Perry R (1997) Hazardous materials releases in the Northridge earthquake: implications for seismic risk assessment. Risk Anal 17(2):147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Louisiana Bucket Brigade (2012) iWitness pollution map – Stolthaven chemical plant tanks and tank cars compromised during Hurricane Isaac. http://map.labucketbrigade.org/reports/view/7616. Accessed 29 Dec 2014
  69. Louisiana Environmental Action Network (2012) Environmental impacts from Hurricane Isaac. http://leanweb.org/our-work/community/environmental-impacts-from-hurricane-isaac. Accessed 29 Dec 2014
  70. Manuel J (2014) Crisis and emergency risk communication: lessons from the Elk River spill. Environ Health Perspect 122(8):A214–A219PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. McFeeley M (2014) Falling through the cracks: public information and the patchwork of hydraulic fracturing disclosure laws. Vermont Law Rev 38:849–901Google Scholar
  72. McKenzie L, Witter R, Newman L et al (2012) Human health risk assessment of air emissions from development of unconventional natural gas resources. Sci Total Environ 424:79–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Merrill T, Schizer D (2013) The shale oil and gas revolution, hydraulic fracturing, and water contamination: a regulatory strategy. Minn Law Rev 98:145Google Scholar
  74. Michanowicz D, Malone S, Kelso M et al (2012) A participatory geographic information system utilizing the GeoWeb 2.0. Syst Cybern Inf 10:45Google Scholar
  75. Misrach R, Orff K (2013) Petrochemical America. Aperture, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Moore C, Zielinska B, Petron G et al (2014) Air impacts of increased natural gas acquisition, processing, and use: a critical review. Environ Sci Tech 48(5):8349–8359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. National Diet of Japan (2012) The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission. The National Diet of Japan, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  78. Nicholson B (2014) Regulatory complexity governs rail, truck oil field transportation. Oil Gas J 112(1):88–93MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  79. Perrow C (1999) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  80. Reitze A (2005) Emergency response and planning requirements applicable to unpermitted air pollution releases. BYU Law Rev 2005(1075):1115Google Scholar
  81. Reynolds D (2013a) EPA eyes local groups for improving plant safety, skirting IST debate. Inside EPA Environmental Protection Alert (2 Apr 2014)Google Scholar
  82. Reynolds D (2013b) Obama order may boost bid for stricter EPA fertilizer, plant safety rules. Inside EPA Toxics Regulation News (7 Aug 2013)Google Scholar
  83. Roesler S (2012) The nature of the environmental right to know. Ecol Law Q 39:989Google Scholar
  84. Samuels R (2013) 3.11: Disaster and change in Japan. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  85. Schierow L (2004) Chemical plant security: CRS report to congress. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  86. Scorecard: The Pollution Information Site (2011) Goodguide, Berkeley, CA. http://scorecard.goodguide.com/general/tri/tri_gen.html. Accessed 27 Dec 2014
  87. Sengul H, Santella N, Steinberg L et al (2012) Analysis of hazardous material releases due to natural hazards in the United States. Disasters 36(4):723–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Shonkoff S, Hays J, Finkel M (2014) Environmental public health dimensions of shale and tight gas development. Environ Health Perspect 122(8):787PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Showalter P, Myers M (1994) Natural disasters in the United States as release agents of oil, chemical, or radiological materials between 1980–1999: analysis and recommendations. Risk Anal 14(2):169–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. SkyTruth (2013) SkyTruth launches map to track oil and gas pollution from Colorado floods. SkyTruth, Shepherdstown, WV. http://blog.skytruth.org/2013/09/colorado-flood-map.html. Accessed 29 Dec 2014
  91. SkyTruth (2014a) About SkyTruth. SkyTruth, Shepherdstown, WV. http://skytruth.org/about. Accessed 22 Dec 2014
  92. SkyTruth (2014b) FrackFinder. SkyTruth, Shepherdstown, WV. http://frack.skytruth.org/frackfinder. Accessed 22 Dec 2014
  93. SkyTruth (2014c) SkyTruth alerts. SkyTruth, Shepherdstown, WV. http://alerts.skytruth.org. Accessed 22 Dec 2014
  94. Steinberg L, Cruz A (2004) When natural, technological disasters collide: lessons from the Turkey earthquake of August 17, 1999. Nat Hazards Rev 5(3):121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Steinberg L, Sengul H, Cruz A (2008) Natech risk and management: an assessment of the state of the art. Nat Hazards 46(2):143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sylie S, Albright L (2014) WellWatch: reflections on designing digital media for multi-sited para-ethnography. J Polit Ecol 21(1):321–348Google Scholar
  97. Tierney K (2007) From the margins to the mainstream? Disaster research at the crossroads. Ann Rev Soc 33:503–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. U.S. Chemical Safety Board (2014) Preliminary findings of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board from its investigation of the West fertilizer explosion and fire. Chemical Safety Board, Washington, DC (22 Apr. 2014)Google Scholar
  99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) General guidance for risk management program for chemical accident prevention. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  100. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) RMP offsite consequence analysis guidance. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-11/documents/chap-04-final.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2014
  101. U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs (2006) Hurricane Katrina: a nation still unprepared: special report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  102. Van den Burg S (2004) Informing or empowering? Disclosure in the United States and the Netherlands. Local Environ 9(4):367–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Weeks J (2014) Regulating toxic chemicals: do hazardous substances need stricter oversight? CQ Res 24(26):603Google Scholar
  104. Young S, Balluz L, Malilay J (2004) Natural and technological hazardous material releases during and after natural disasters: a review. Sci Total Environ 322(1):3–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brooklyn Law SchoolBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations