Are Chemical Storage Facilities Safe from Sea Level Rise?

Map source: “Toxic Floodwaters”

If the threat of leaking coal ash pits kept you up at night, wait until you read, “Toxic Floodwaters: The Threat of Climate-Driven Chemical Disaster in Virginia’s James River Watershed,” a report just published by the Center for Progressive Reform.

Authors Noah Sachs (a University of Richmond professor and a friend of mine) and David Flores argue that the James River watershed “is among the regions of the country most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change” due to higher-than-average sea-level rise, intensifying rainfall, and increased hurricane risk. “As major storms cause serious and potentially toxic flooding in the James River watershed … residents are reminded that the industries surrounding them are not doing enough to plan and adapt to our changing world.”

Also, as we have come to expect from the modern environmental movement, there is a social justice component to the report. “Social vulnerability interacts with geography and climate to produce a climate crisis,” the authors write.

The study raises some legitimate questions, but I can’t find any evidence to buttress its strongest assertions. I’ll get to those reservations in a moment. But first, let’s see what the report says.

“Toxic Floodwaters” is the first comprehensive examination of the threat that storms and flooding pose to the socially vulnerable communities surrounding hazardous chemical storage sites throughout the Commonwealth, the authors write. The research project is the product of a three-year partnership between the Center for Progressive Reform, the James River Association, and Chesapeake Commons.

The three-part methodology of the study: (1) identified all industrial facilities in the watershed “likely” to handle toxic and hazardous substances; (2) created a geospatial model to map how these facilities are exposed to potential flooding; and (3) overlaid demographic data to identify census tracts that are most socially vulnerable to disaster events. The index includes metrics for vehicle access, crowded housing, age, education, English language usage, household income, and federal poverty status. Among the key findings:

  • More than 2,700 industrial facilities regulated by federal and state
    programs for toxic and hazardous chemicals are located in the most
    socially vulnerable census tracts in the James River watershed.
  • In the tidal region of the James River, from Hampton Roads upriver to Richmond, 234 facilities regulated for hazardous or toxic substances would be flooded by future sea-level rise between one and five feet. Moreover, 91 of these facilities would be flooded by just one foot of sea level rise, which climate scientists expect to occur no later than 2050.
  • On average, 125 socially vulnerable census tracts contain 25 flood-exposed industrial facilities each. Some 473,000 Virginians live in these census tracts.

Conclude Sachs and Flores: “Our research and analysis show that lawmakers and regulators in the Commonwealth have not effectively addressed flooding risks at industrial facilities – risks that are growing due to climate change.”

The study proposes a welter of new regulations to identify potential flooding risks, increase transparency, and tighten standards for siting, building and maintaining chemical storage tanks. “DEQ should realign its enforcement policy and invest new resources to prioritize inspection and enforcement efforts on flood-exposed facilities located near the Commonwealth’s most socially vulnerable communities.”

Bacon’s bottom line: Sachs and Flores have raised a significant issue that has so far eluded public attention. The risks they have identified are potentially of a magnitude that warrant closer scrutiny. The sea level is rising. Whether it’s rising as rapidly as climate-alarmist scenarios suggest is worth debating. Whether the risk of hurricane activity is actually intensifying is another empirical question that may or may not be substantiated by the evidence. But there is no denying the fact that, between sea-level rise globally and subsidence in Virginia’s Tidewater, water tables and the frequency and severity of flooding in the tidal reaches of the James River are creeping higher.

I’m not sure the social-justice angle adds anything to the debate, however. If there is a risk that floodwaters could be contaminated, does it really matter if a census tract is “socially vulnerable” or not? A threat to public health is a threat to public health. Are we now elevating threats to the “social vulnerable” population to a higher level of priority than to the general public?

My biggest concern is that the authors pre-suppose that there is a problem. As they write: “Residents are reminded that the industries surrounding them are not doing enough to plan and adapt to our changing world. … Our research and analysis show that lawmakers and regulators in the Commonwealth have not effectively addressed flooding risks at industrial facilities.”

Who says? They provide no evidence to back up that statement. They describe a hypothetical risk that bears looking into, but they over-reach when they assert definitively that the current regulatory regime is inadequate.

DEQ regulates and inspects chemical-storage facilities. “Toxic Floodwaters” provides no specific instances in which chemical and gasoline storage poses a tangible threat.  The report provides no statistics on the number of inspections, much less the number of facilities that have failed inspection, nor does it critique anyone’s risk-management plans. 

Sachs and Flores make the legitimate point that regulations should be forward-looking. Regulators should anticipate the elevated risk of flooding as the sea level rises in the decades ahead. However, in contrast to, say, coal ash, which has been buried in open pits through which rainwater and groundwater can migrates, gasoline and toxic chemicals used in industrial and commercial processes are stored in sealed tanks and containers. Moreover, the volumes are much smaller. Rather than talking about millions of tons, which will take years to remove, as with coal ash, we may be talking about millions of gallons or pounds. The logistical challenge of relocating chemical storage facilities as flooding risks increase in the years and decades ahead, I expect, is a fraction of that posed by coal ash. Even if the sea level is rising, one might conjecture, there is plenty of time for industry to adapt.

Still, I agree with the authors that transparency is vital. Citizens have a right to public records such as permit applications, inspection reports, companies’ risk-management plans, and compliance data. In particular, citizens have a right to know if risk management plans, which are updated every five years, consider the implications of sea-level rise. DEQ should make this information available online. Citizen activism is a safeguard against industry and government complacency. Perhaps a closer inspection of these records will expose real dangers rather than hypothetical ones.

There are currently no comments highlighted.

4 responses to “Are Chemical Storage Facilities Safe from Sea Level Rise?

  1. In general, flood waters are often highly contaminated. When we lived in Baton Rouge what I saw there was lots of manure in the flood waters, so it was smelly and sickening, and to get it on your house would be terrible. I am not sure what regulations are for storage tanks, but that is something we can (via a competent engineering firm) study if Virginia is up to standards, and if it seemed necessary based on risk assessment, set higher standards.

  2. Flood waters are contaminated and the thing to recognize about sea level rise is that we are also seeing 500 and 1000 year floods on the rivers that empty into the ocean and those floods are also part of the problem because most sewage treatment plants are located in flood plains to start with and once a flood knocks out a sewage treatment plant – untreated raw sewage flow into the River.

    Additonally – if storm water infrastructure – is overwhelmed, it too can knock out the sewage treatment plant and this type of flooding is more and more common with our weather patterns these days.

    It’s these 500/1000 year floods that also threaten holding ponds for hog and poultry farms as well as coal ash and other mining tailings along rivers.

    But for the two College professors, I’m amazed that this was a voluntary study they just chose to do – as opposed to a mandatory analysis required by government to assess the changes and impacts we are seeing from not only sea level rise but increased flooding from more turbulent weather.

    I note that some folks also don’t want to see FEMA update their flood maps either for fear that mortgage lenders might exit lending for such properties and local government will have to acknowledge unfunded liabilities associated with flooding – as well as sea level rise.

    There is a misunderstanding and/or appreciation of sea level rise also. It’s NOT … slowing rising over decades – it’s happening right now in the form of increased storm surges like we saw with Sandy in which the ocean flooded areas never flooded before – like subway tunnels and low lying bridges and roads.

    Even in some parts of the Chesapeake Bay – we are seeing roads getting flooding from storm surges and that means whatever else is also located along those roads such as water/sewer pipes, septic fields, fuel tanks, etc…

    This is not something that is _going_ to happen some day in the future, it happening right now today when we see hurricanes – ones that actually “miss” up directly but their surge and high tides come.

  3. Pingback: Environmental Stewardship Series: Part 1 of 3 | EnCAP-IT

  4. Pingback: Environmental Stewardship Series: Part 1 of 3 – EnCAP-IT

Leave a Reply