National Academies Press: OpenBook

Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment (2004)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Air Quality
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Hazardous Materials." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13694.
×
Page 117

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

95 CHAPTER 4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OVERVIEW The effects of hazardous materials exposure and transportation should be considered in nearly all aspects of transportation planning, construction, and operation. In the planning phase, environmental property assessments should be completed to identify properties potentially contaminated with hazardous materials. During construction, hazardous materials may be used in many aspects of the project, including equipment fueling, asphalt batching, and concrete mixing. Transportation operations involve use of hazardous materials in road maintenance and in various capacities at maintenance facilities. Also during transportation operations, system users and persons living or working near transportation facilities may be exposed to hazardous materials being transported across the system. In each case, regulations governing the identification, use, and disposal/recycling of hazardous materials are applied at the federal, state, and/or local level. Environmental justice assessment for hazardous materials involves defining the pattern of known or potential contamination and then correlating that pattern with the underlying demographic pattern. Methods for assessing hazardous waste sites are well established. Several methods also are available for assessing hazardous materials transport issues, but in general integration of hazardous materials data with demographic data for environmental justice assessment is currently limited in the transportation field. Hazardous materials considerations should be fully integrated within the environmental justice assessment process. Most state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) collect enough data to assess environmental justice under existing federal, state, and local hazardous materials programs. The key to effectively integrating hazardous materials considerations into environmental justice assessment is to identify the existing hazardous materials data to be used and to integrate that data with demographic information to evaluate distributive effects to protected populations. STATE OF THE PRACTICE Management and transportation of hazardous materials is governed by environmental regulation and authority. Hazardous materials applications within the transportation industry include corridor and project assessments, transportation facility construction and operation, and transportation spills and releases. Environmental regulation and authority The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead federal agency for protecting human health and safeguarding the natural environment—air, water, and land. Within the EPA, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) oversees the implementation of most hazardous waste regulations. In response to Executive Order 12898 (President, Proclamation 1994), OSWER has had a policy on environmental justice since 1994 (U.S. EPA 1994).

96 Through its Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative and other EPA cleanup programs, OSWER has directed that special efforts be taken for remedy selection purposes when identifying the future uses of land at sites where environmental justice concerns may exist. In August 2001, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman expressed the Agency’s commitment to environmental justice and its integration into all EPA programs to ensure that environmental justice is achieved for all communities and persons across the nation. Most states have either been delegated authority or have joint authority with EPA for hazardous waste regulation. As a matter of regulation and practice, most DOTs and MPOs primarily work with state agencies on hazardous materials issues, although most state environmental justice programs are not as developed as EPA programs. Application within the transportation industry In the field of transportation, integration of hazardous materials data with demographic data for environmental justice assessment is limited. In general, the transportation industry’s response to environmental justice is driven by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Although assessment of hazardous waste and hazardous material sites is a component of NEPA, it is not a primary focus of the NEPA documentation process. For this reason, hazardous waste issues often are not addressed within the environmental justice assessment process. To address hazardous materials within the context of environmental justice, the following discussion is divided into three segments common to the transportation field: • Corridor and project assessments, • Construction and operation of transportation corridors and facilities, and • Transportation spills and releases. For each of these segments, we summarize current standard practices along with hazardous materials information currently collected by the transportation industry. While it is not an exhaustive list, the intent is to communicate the overall volume of data already being collected by DOTs and MPOs under current hazardous materials programs. From this information, we can identify the readily available hazardous materials information that can be used to perform environmental justice assessment. Corridor and project assessments Before beginning a transportation construction project, the current practice is to evaluate the transportation corridor for the existence of contaminated sites. Historically, this evaluation has been conducted to address potential impacts to corridor construction costs, schedule, routing, potential construction worker exposure, and associated environmental liability. The initial evaluation typically is a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (referred to as a Phase 1 ESA or a Phase 1 Assessment) conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing Methods (ASTM) guidelines for environmental due diligence (ASTM 2003). The Phase 1 ESA may be undertaken as a portion of the NEPA environmental review, in preparation for property acquisition, or before construction takes place within a right-of-way.

97 The Phase 1 ESA has become a common tool for assessing the potential environmental liability associated with the acquisition of a property. The federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), otherwise known as “Superfund,” established “joint and several” liability for purchasers of contaminated property. Through this liability, a buyer of contaminated property may be held responsible for cleanup costs even though the buyer did not contaminate the property. The intent of the Phase 1 ESA is to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the “innocent landowner defense” to CERCLA liability, making “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and use of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” (ASTM 2003). For purposes of environmental justice assessment, the Phase 1 ESA provides information for evaluating the potential effects of hazardous materials sites to protected populations. The Phase 1 ESA typically consists of the following: • Site/corridor reconnaissance, • Environmental records and regulatory database review, and • Interviews with persons knowledgeable about property history and use. During the Phase 1 ESA, environmental regulatory databases are searched for known hazardous materials sites within some defined distance from the right-of-way or construction site. Table 4-1 is an excerpt from a hazardous materials database search. The report describes the types of facilities found and their name, map location, and address. Figure 4-1 is an example of a Phase 1 ESA hazardous waste site locator map. The map was developed in LandViewTM III, showing CERCLA sites, hazardous waste facilities, and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) facilities (U.S. EPA 2003). Note that LandView TM 5 soon will replace LandViewTM III. Information collected during a Phase 1 ESA can be categorized as: • Sites with reported environmental releases and spills, • Sites with permits to use and temporarily store hazardous materials/wastes, • Sites with permits to treat, store, and dispose of hazardous materials/waste, • Sites with permits to operate underground storage tanks and aboveground storage tanks, and • Sites with permits to dispose/landfill solid waste (landfills). Using the information collected in the Phase 1 ESA, the DOT or MPO may choose to pursue additional soil investigations, groundwater investigations, or both. These investigations typically are undertaken if a site within a corridor is judged to have “recognized environmental conditions.” Recognized environmental conditions include, but are not limited to, underground storage tanks (USTs); above-ground storage tanks (ASTs); reports of previous hazardous materials releases; and suspected dumps, landfills, or prior or current land use consistent with sites typically associated with hazardous materials releases. Such sites would include dry cleaning operations, salvage yards, and railroad roundhouses, for example.

98 Table 4-1. Example excerpt of hazardous materials database search CERC-NFRAP Search Results 1 CERC-NFRAP site within the searched area. Page Map ID Address Site _____ _____ ________ ________ 38 14 3605 HWY 52N IBM INTL BUS MCHS CORP CORRACTS Search Results CORRACTS: CORRACTS is a list of handlers with RCRA Corrective Action Activity. This report shows which nationally defined corrective action core events have occurred for every handler that has had corrective action activity. A review of the CORRACTS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/02/2002 has revealed that there is 1 CORRACTS site within the searched area. Page Map ID Address Site _____ _____ ________ ________ 38 14 3605 HWY 52N IBM INTL BUS MCHS CORP RCRIS Search Results RCRIS: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act database includes selected information on sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Act. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. A review of the RCRIS-TSD list, as provided by EDR, and dated 09/09/2002 has revealed that there is 1RCRIS-TSD site within the searched area. Legend HAZ_WASTE_FACIL NOT_OF_SUPERFUND_C.. Railroads Roads (major) TRI H C T Figure 4-1. Phase 1 ESA hazardous waste site locator map Source: EPA 1998

99 Standards for soil and groundwater investigations typically are based on state environmental protection agency guidelines. Results of the soil and groundwater investigation are reviewed with respect to EPA and state regulatory agency standards for environmental contamination and cleanup. If a site within or adjacent to the transportation facility’s right-of-way displays evidence of contamination above regulatory limits, the DOT or MPO may pursue a number of cleanup options. These options include, but are not limited to, negotiating with the environmental agency to perform the cleanup of the site before acquisition or construction; negotiating with private property owner(s) for site cleanup as a condition of property transfer; or realigning the transportation corridor or segment. In practice, most transportation project cleanups address soil contamination. In general, remediation consists of contaminated soil removal and is typically associated with petroleum contamination. However, for larger corridor realignments or construction involving dewatering, more complex groundwater remediation may be warranted. Current trends in environmental remediation include establishing risk-based cleanup criteria that allow for managing hazardous waste “in place,” and establishing institutional controls (such as deed restrictions). The EPA and most state environmental protection agencies have established specific risk-based cleanup programs for soil and groundwater affected by hazardous waste. In general, the criteria for risk-based cleanups address the following points: • Intended property use (such as industrial versus residential); • Potential effects to human “receptors” via ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact; and • Potential effects to ecological “receptors.” Opportunities for offsetting environmental justice benefits as a result of environmental remediation may be a future area of consideration. As an example, the realignment of a road may require that in-place contaminated soil be removed. An environmental justice benefit could result if the road is within a protected population area and the removal of contaminated soil mitigated potential contaminant exposure to the nearby population. In essence, transportation projects can be a catalyst for environmental remediation that may not have otherwise occurred. Data collected during Phase 1 ESAs have the greatest potential for use in hazardous materials environmental justice planning. In particular, environmental database information from federal and state environmental regulatory authorities can be used to assess locations of known environmental contamination sites, large quantity hazardous waste generators, and disposal facilities. These data can then be cross-referenced to demographic information. Assessing environmental justice with respect to hazardous materials should include activities such as corridor realignment as a function of environmental contamination, environmental exposure as a function of site remediation, and positive mitigation and offsetting benefits as a result of site cleanups.

100 Construction and operation Construction and operation of transportation facilities, including roads, highways, bridges, railways, and maintenance facilities, inherently involves the use of hazardous materials and also generates some level of hazardous waste. Use and control of hazardous materials is regulated by various federal regulations including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Standard practice for state DOTs and MPOs is to maintain regulatory compliance for construction materials and waste. In maintaining compliance, these agencies apply for and maintain environmental permits, including hazardous materials permits, waste manifests for disposal, and spill prevention plans. Hazardous materials permit information is kept by individual DOTs and MPOs and typically is available from federal, state, and local environmental agency regulatory databases. Like the Phase 1 ESA process, this information may be easily accessed for review and integration into environmental justice assessment. Environmental justice assessment should include a review of the use and control of hazardous materials during project construction; siting and establishing construction and demolition debris landfills; siting and establishing DOT or MPO transportation facilities (e.g., maintenance facility); and, potentially, construction staging areas. Transportation spills and releases Accidental spills and releases of hazardous materials are relatively commonplace within transportation corridors. Federal and state DOTs, in concert with the EPA and state environmental protection agencies, regulate transportation of hazardous and radioactive materials. In addition, emergency response guidelines for mitigation and cleanup are regulated at the federal and state levels. Large amounts of accidental release data are available from federal, state, and local agencies. The Emergency Response and Notification System (ERNS) is the primary national database used to report and track hazardous materials spills. This information can be used to determine if past accidental release patterns may disproportionately affect protected populations. For an example of this type of analysis, see Margai (2001), which contains an analysis of the impact zones of spills in two New York counties over a 10-year period using information from ERNS. However, use of predictive modeling for hazardous materials releases is not currently well defined or used in environmental justice assessments within the transportation field. A number of models for predicting impacts as a result of hazardous materials releases are available within the public domain. These models tend to address airborne impacts but also address impacts via liquid/solid materials and radioactive materials. For example, Chakraborty and Armstrong (1995) developed a method using the Areal Location of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) model, combined with demographic information in geographic information systems (GIS) to assess the demographic characteristics of populations most likely to be exposed to hazardous materials transport accidents in the Des Moines, IA, area. Erkut and Verter (1998)

101 provide and summarize the most commonly used hazardous materials transport models. Zhang et al. (2000) apply hazardous materials routing that considers risks to populations from airborne contaminants. Mills and Neuhauser (2000) developed an assessment method to evaluate the distributive and disproportionate effects of accidents involving radioactive materials using the probabilistic risk RADTRAN model developed by Sandia National Laboratories. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has developed a useful handbook related to assessing the risks associated with routing of radioactive waste shipments (DOE 2002). Applying an environmental justice assessment of potential spills and releases may be the most challenging hazardous materials issue. However, this subject may also be the most quantifiable in terms of developing standardized models. A heightened public awareness and scrutiny of hazardous and radioactive materials transport has resulted from the potential completion of the Yucca Mountain National Nuclear Repository in Nevada. This repository would result in a large volume of high-level radioactive waste being transported throughout the United States. Environmental justice assessment of hazardous materials transport would include assessment of disproportionate impacts to target populations as a result of selected alignments and transportation facility locations. Practical development and application of standardized models is recommended. SELECTING AN APPROPRIATE METHOD OF ANALYSIS The challenge before practitioners is to better integrate hazardous materials information within the context of transportation environmental justice decision making. Traditional hazardous materials practice in the transportation field has focused on site-specific information within a corridor rather than on corridor-wide information. Layering of hazardous material data with demographic information for applications to transportation environmental justice is a relatively new and nonstandardized approach. Desktop tools and methodologies. As previously mentioned, the information gathered during the Phase 1 ESA may have the greatest potential for use in hazardous materials environmental justice planning and evaluation. DOTs and MPOs regularly complete this form of assessment for projects that involve property acquisition or construction. As such, the data required to conduct the hazardous materials environmental justice assessment generally are readily available. In addition, public domain databases, such as the EPA’s LandView™ III, can be accessed to provide standardized Phase 1 ESA data and certain demographic information like that shown in Figure 4-2. It is important to note that LandView™ III is based on 1990 Census data. The soon- to-be-released LandView™ 5 will use 2000 Census data. Computer models. A number of computer models suitable for assessing distributive hazardous materials effects have been developed. These models can be generally categorized as follows: • Models that assess current known or suspected hazardous materials environmental impacts. • Models that assess potential environmental impacts as a function of potential environmental releases.

102 Use of these models provides the basis for developing a more standardized “quantitative” approach to environmental justice assessment of hazardous materials concerns in the transportation field. Practically speaking, these models (or adaptations of them) would generally be used for larger and more complex transportation projects. Figure 4-2. Census data from LandView III Source: EPA 1998. METHODS Environmental justice assessment of transportation-related hazardous materials effects should use methods that match the overall complexity of the project or program being evaluated. Using a “tiered” process, the assessment should be initiated using practical desktop review methods and elevated to more complex analysis and computer modeling only as dictated by project requirements. By using a tiered assessment process, you can develop an efficient approach to environmental justice assessments within your agency’s objectives and resource limitations. The following methods provide examples of how hazardous material data can effectively be used to perform environmental justice assessment. The techniques presented here may be adapted or modified to meet specific project or program needs. Table 4-2 provides a summary of four methods for evaluating environmental justice with respect to hazardous materials.

103 Method 1. Phase 1 desktop assessment When to use. This approach can be used as the initial environmental justice review to evaluate distributive effects of potential hazardous materials exposure in most project or corridor studies. The examples provided below are for performing the evaluation as part of a Phase I ESA. Desktop assessment is also well suited to assessing the distribution of hazardous materials sites with respect to demographic patterns during all phases of transportation planning. Additionally, it is appropriate for evaluating environmental justice concerns related to construction staging areas, transportation maintenance facilities, transportation projects where physical property will be acquired or altered, and patterns of known hazardous materials spills. Table 4-2. Summary of methods for analysis of hazardous materials effects Method Assessment level Appropriate uses Use when Data needs Expertise required 1. Phase 1 desktop assessment Screening Initial assessment of the presence of hazardous waste sites During evaluation of proposed construction corridors Low Simple data analysis 2. Phase 1 computer- based assessment Screening Second-tier assessment of the presence of hazardous waste sites When desktop assessment indicates possible problem areas Medium Geographic information systems (GIS), Statistical analysis 3. Hazardous materials transport screening study Screening Initial assessment of transport routes for hazardous materials During evaluation of proposed construction corridors Low Simple data analysis 4. Hazardous materials transport— probability modeling Detailed Risk modeling of hazardous materials exposure or release Screening methods indicate a significant potential for exposure to hazardous materials Cost of mitigation or remediation is high Medium/ high Fault-tree and other risk analysis methods, GIS Analysis. The approach combines Phase I ESA database and map review with desktop demographic review. It involves evaluating the presence of both hazardous materials sites and protected populations in the study area. When the two are present in the same area, there is the potential for environmental justice concern and the need to perform further review. Used in this manner, the approach serves as a useful screening technique so that the resources to perform more in-depth analysis can be targeted to the areas where they are needed.

104 Step 1 - Conduct environmental assessment. Review national, state, and local databases to identify locations where hazardous materials and waste are likely to be produced, stored, or used. The results of a Phase I ESA presented in map form are ideal for this purpose. The Phase I ESA process is discussed above, and a list of useful databases is provided in the resources section of this chapter. Step 2 – Perform demographic review. Collect information on the presence of protected populations using any number of the techniques described in Chapter 2. Especially useful techniques include use of local knowledge, threshold analysis using block and block-group-level census data, field survey, and the Environmental Justice Index (EJI). Whatever technique or combination of techniques is applied, the intent is to identify locations in the activity space of protected population groups. Step 3 – Tabulate results. Results of the environmental and demographic reviews can be compiled in numerous ways. Probably the simplest approach is to mark up a Phase I ESA map to show minority or low-income neighborhoods and work places and activity centers that are predominantly used by members of protected population groups. Then it is relatively straightforward to list the sites where further environmental justice review, such as a thorough field survey, should be performed. Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. The environmental review should include the following information sources: • EPA National Priorities List (Superfund) sites, • Sites on the state Priority List, • Leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), • Solid waste landfills, incinerators, and transfer stations, • Registered underground storage tanks (UST), • Sites with previous hazardous materials spills, and • Sites that generate hazardous waste. The demographic review should be based on readily available information according to the method used to identify the protected population. More information on data sources is provided in Chapter 2. The desktop assessment technique is limited to identifying hazardous materials sites near areas used by protected populations. A more thorough review should be performed in situations where such locations are identified. This semi-quantitative approach does not use statistical analysis. Application of this technique alone is not recommended for controversial projects where more thorough analysis would be required. The technique is not useful in situations where hazardous materials transport and release should be evaluated. Results and their presentation. The best form of presentation is maps showing hazardous materials sites, small-area demographic data, neighborhoods, and sites of interest to protected populations. Figure 4-3 provides an example.

105 Assessment. For most project and corridor environmental justice assessments, this is the logical hazardous materials screening evaluation to perform. In many cases, further study will not be necessary. In cases where there is a need for further analysis, consider using GIS to perform the environmental and demographic reviews as this would make it easier to use the results in further studies. This method can also be used as a way to evaluate benefits to protected populations by identifying areas where environmental cleanup activities are planned. Figure 4-3. Results of a Phase I desktop assessment Method 2. Phase 1 computer-based assessment When to use. This approach is a modification of the Phase I desktop assessment that uses GIS and includes a statistical test. Consider using this technique when projects are controversial or large or if the desktop assessment indicates the potential for environmental justice concern. This approach, although somewhat data intensive, is also suitable for reviewing regional or even statewide hazardous materials programs. Analysis. Steps 1 and 2 are the same as those in Method 1, Phase 1 desktop assessment, although the information should be stored electronically in GIS. Step 3 – Statistical test. Various statistical tests are available to determine if hazardous material sites are located predominantly in protected population areas. The specific test that should be applied depends in large part on the amount of data being evaluated and on the experience and qualifications of the person performing the analysis. Often it is appropriate to use simple techniques that are easily performed manually or with the aid of spreadsheet software. The following example illustrates the application of a chi-square test for independence. This test can be used to determine if hazardous material sites in the study area occur more frequently in areas with protected populations than would be expected if they were randomly distributed. To perform the chi-square test, first divide the study area into sub-areas. In general, it is best to use a high level of resolution, because the chi-square test is more robust with larger numbers of

106 observations. For a typical transportation project, an analysis based on census block or block- group subareas provides adequate resolution. Once you have determined the subareas, characterize each in terms of their relative density of protected population using one of the techniques described in Chapter 2. Using the EJI, for example, you could define subareas of higher environmental justice concern as census block groups with an EJI greater than 40 (or another value that is appropriate for the study area in question). Next, characterize each subarea in terms of presence or density of hazardous materials, based on the Phase 1 ESA. The characterization could be based on, for example, the number of hazardous materials sites within 1 mile of the subarea. If subareas vary greatly in size, it may be necessary to convert the score to an area-weighted measure, such as the number of hazardous facilities per square mile. Convert the quantitative risk estimates to a two- or three-point scale (e.g., high, medium, and low availability). Table 4-3 is an example of results of a hypothetical analysis. Table 4-3. Example analysis results EJI Risk of exposure Sub-area > 40 ≤ 40 Low Medium High 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   Table 4-4 shows the same data cast into a 2 by 3 contingency table. The values in italics are the expected frequencies for each cell if the EJI did not vary with the presence of hazardous materials. The chi-square test compares the actual distribution of values within the table with the expected frequencies and determines the probability that the discrepancies between the two could have occurred from sampling error alone (in other words, that there is not a statistically significant difference between the two distributions).

107 Simply reading the table, it appears from visual inspection of this table that the environmental impacts of this hypothetical project are not equally distributed. Only 20 percent of the sub-areas with low hazardous materials availability have EJI ratings greater than 40, whereas 100 percent of the sub-areas with high hazardous materials availability have EJI ratings greater than 40. This is only an impression, however, which can be confirmed (or not) using the chi-square test. This test can be conducted using virtually any standard statistical software package. Table 4-4. Contingency table for example data Hazardous materials presence Low Medium High Total > 40 1 2.67 2 2.67 5 2.67 8 ≤ 40 4 2.33 3 2.33 0 2.33 7E JI Total 5 5 5 15 Note: Expected values for the chi-square computation are in italic. In this example, the computed value of chi-square (X 2) is 6.97. The statistical significance of the value of X 2 is determined by a table look-up (e.g., Siegal and Castellan 1988, Table C), with 2 degrees of freedom (df). (Statistical software programs provide this information.) The degrees of freedom are based on the number of rows and columns in the contingency table: df = (# of rows – 1) X (# of columns – 1) = 1 X 2 = 2 In this example, the value of X 2 (6.97, df = 2) is significant at the 5 percent error level. That is, there is a 5 percent or less probability that the observed discrepancy between observed and expected frequencies would occur by chance alone. Thus, the subjective impression that the availability of hazardous materials is not equitably distributed between protected and non- protected populations is confirmed statistically. Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. The following data are required for the calculation of X 2: • Phase 1 Environmental Assessment results by census blocks or block groups and • Demographic data detailing the density of protected and nonprotected populations in each census block or block group. When the expected frequencies are very small, the X 2 test should not be used. Siegal and Castellan (1988) list several criteria that should be met, including the following: • When the degrees of freedom is 1 (i.e., rows = 2 and columns = 2) and the total number of observations (census blocks, in the example given) is less than or equal to 20, X 2 should not be used. In these cases, the Fisher exact test may be used.

108 • When the degrees of freedom are greater than 1, the X 2 test should not be used if more than 20 percent of the cells have an expected frequency of less than 5 or if any cell has an expected frequency of less than 1. (Note that the example given does not meet this criterion. It has been simplified for purposes of description.) The chi-square test is widely used and has the benefit of simplicity. However, it is limited in that it does not take into account order effects. In the example presented, the value of the chi-square statistic would be the same regardless of the order in which the columns (or rows) of the contingency table were placed. This means information is available that is not used in the analysis. Siegal and Castellan (1988) describe several nonparametric statistical tests for two independent samples that make use of order information, although they are computationally more complicated than the chi-square test. These tests (e.g., Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, Rank Order test, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov Two Sample test) are more powerful than the chi-square test for ordinal-scale data. That is, they are more likely to indicate whether a statistically significant effect is present than is the chi-square test when applied to the same data. Results and their presentation. Use maps or a GIS to plot hazardous materials and socio- demographic overlay information. The value of chi-square, degrees of freedom, and the level of significance should be presented along with the contingency table. Text should be provided documenting the methodology used, data collected, assumptions made, and interpretations derived. Assessment. This method makes use of quantitative data similar to that gathered in Method 1 for the desktop assessment of hazardous materials distribution. It has the benefit of using an inferential statistic to validate or reject any subjective impressions that may have arisen from the desktop assessment. The proposed statistic, chi-square, is easy to use and to interpret, although it may not be as powerful as alternative, more complicated statistical tests that make use of order information in the data. Method 3. Hazardous materials transport screening study When to use. Assessing environmental justice aspects of accidental hazardous materials releases in transportation corridors is based on the risk to protected populations compared to that of the rest of the population. In this context, the term risk implies a combination of two factors—the probability of an accidental release and the impact of the release on the populations. This method and Method 4 are suitable for assessing risk of exposure to accidental releases of hazardous materials in transportation corridors. This screening method is used to obtain a rough estimate of the possible risk of a hazardous materials release in different segments along a route or set of routes and to determine whether the risk is disproportionate in areas with protected populations. Use this method as a screening step to determine whether a more detailed risk assessment needs to be done (Method 4, below). Transport screening studies rely on existing sources of information to determine the following: • Routes in the study area that are available for hazardous materials transport,

109 • Sources and destinations of hazardous materials transport in the study area, and • Distribution of protected and nonprotected populations in close proximity to the routes under study. This method does not include a detailed analysis of the probability that an accidental release might occur. However, if results indicate that protected populations would be more likely to be impacted if a release were to occur, a more detailed analysis of exposure risks should be conducted. By the same token, if a preliminary study indicates that there is not a distributive effect, the more detailed and costly risk analysis method is probably unnecessary. Analysis. To apply this method, you must first make a rough determination of the likely routes for hazardous materials transport within the study area. The second step is to determine the number of people protected and nonprotected populations living near enough to the roadway to suffer the consequences of a spill. The third and final step is to apply a statistical test to determine whether the protected populations would be disproportionately impacted if a spill were to occur. Step 1 – Identify hazardous materials routes. The objective of this step is to identify roadways on which there is reason to expect that hazardous materials will be transported. Review national, state, and local databases to identify locations where hazardous materials and waste are likely to be produced, stored, or used. The results of a Phase I ESA, presented in map form or a similar presentation, are ideal for this purpose. The Phase I assessment process is discussed above, and a list of useful databases is provided in the resources section of this chapter. Use these data to identify possible sources and destinations of hazardous materials. Next, contact the national, state, and local agencies that issue permits for hazardous material transport. Use the information previously gathered regarding sites where hazardous materials are produced, stored, or used to identify transport permit holders. In some states (e.g., Georgia), holders of hazardous materials transport permits are required to file annual reports detailing the type and amount of hazardous materials transported and the origins and destinations of transport. If available, this information can help to determine the routes of hazardous material transport within the study area. In some areas (states, counties, or cities), the transport of hazardous materials is restricted by statute to certain routes. For example, routing information for the state of Texas may be found online (TXDOT 2003). If this information is available, it should be analyzed to determine whether the designation of preferred, prohibited, or alternate routes impacts the transport of hazardous materials in the project area. For the purposes of this method, a hazardous materials transport route is any section of roadway that is designated by state or local statute to be a hazardous materials route or that is a preferred route to or from a location identified as the destination or source of hazardous materials. GIS- based routing analysis can be used to identify preferred routes if that information is not directly available from other sources. Step 2 – Perform demographic review. Mills and Neuhauser (2000) describe a method for determining the density of protected and nonprotected populations living in proximity to a

110 roadway—in this case, a roadway used for transport of hazardous materials. Their method consists of analyzing census data for the blocks in proximity to the roadway. This is straightforward, except for the issue of how to define “proximity.” The Argonne National Laboratory conducted a study (Brown et al. 2000) to determine the Initial Isolation Zone (IIZ) and Protective Action Distance (PAD) for accidental releases of various classes of chemicals that are toxic by inhalation (TIH) or that produce TIH gases when they react with water (TIHWR). They define the IIZ as the radius of a zone around a release from which all people not directly involved in emergency response are to be kept away. The PAD is the downwind distance from a release that defines a zone in which persons should be either evacuated or sheltered-in-place. The authors computed the IIZ and PAD for small and large spills of various materials. IIZs and PADs are given for both daytime and nighttime spills. Nighttime IIZs and PADs are greater than daytime values. It may be reasoned that the IIZ represents the zone of immediate and significant impact. The largest IIZ for any of the materials in this study was 3,000 feet (e.g., the nighttime IIZ for a spill of over 55 gallons of liquefied toxic gas). Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, the figure of 3,000 feet can be used as a conservative definition of proximity to a release. If the nature of the hazardous materials being transported in the study area is known or if it is known that only small quantities (55 gallons or less) of the most dangerous materials will be transported within the area, it may be appropriate to use a smaller value than 3,000 feet, based on the worst case IIZ for the known conditions. Indeed, the definition of proximity may differ from one section of the roadway to another, depending on local conditions. For example, if you determine in Step 1 that a plant producing anhydrous ammonia is located on a road segment that is not designated as a hazardous material route, it may be assumed that anhydrous ammonia is the only hazardous material likely to be shipped on that road segment. In this case, it would be appropriate to use the worst case IIZ for anhydrous ammonia (200 feet) as the definition of proximity for the purpose of this analysis. Once proximities have been defined, you can use buffer techniques in GIS and perform small-area interpolation as described in Chapter 2 to characterize the demographics of the population in the proximate zone or zones. Step 3 – Analyze the findings. In Step 1, roadways on which hazardous materials may be transported are identified. In Step 2, a buffer zone around the roadways is defined and the census data for the blocks or block groups falling within the buffer zone or zones is compiled. To analyze these findings, compare the protected population proportions and the nonprotected population proportions for the proximate zone or zones. For example, if the study area has a total of 10,000 low-income persons (or members of any protected population group) and through small-area interpolation it is estimated that 2,000 live in a zone near hazardous materials transport routes, then an estimated 20 percent of the protected population lives in the proximate zone. This calculation is then repeated for the nonprotected population. If the proportion of the total study area protected population living in proximate zones is greater than the total study area non-protected population living in those zones, the protected population

111 group may be differentially affected by hazardous materials spills if they are expected to occur randomly along hazardous material route segments. Step 4 – Optional statistical test. A discrepancy is defined as a difference in the proportion of the protected population and the proportion of nonprotected population in proximity. A statistically significant difference exists if the observed difference could not be explained by chance alone. If a discrepancy is observed that is very unlikely to occur under random and independent assignment, then the discrepancy is statistically significant. Note that a significant discrepancy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to show a disparate impact. It is insufficient because the statistically significant result could be due to the fact that the premise of random and independent assignment of individuals to locations is not appropriate. Nonetheless, this kind of evaluation serves as a useful starting point for evaluating a potential disparate impact. To compute the test statistic, you must calculate the proportion of the total protected population that is in proximity (this is defined as p1) and the proportion of the total nonprotected population that is in proximity (this is defined as p2). If p1 and p2 are different from one another, this is evidence of a discrepancy. The test statistic is figured as the difference p1 - p2 divided by the standard error of the difference, where the standard error is computed under the assumption that the two true proportions, p1 and p2, are equal. Under this assumption, the expected value of p1 - p2 is zero. The standard error is interpreted as the amount by which the observed difference p1 - p2 might differ from zero just due to chance variability. Thus, taking the observed difference relative to the standard error indicates whether the observed difference is “far” away from zero. A general rule of thumb is that if the ratio p1-p2 divided by the standard error is greater than 2 or 3, then one can conclude that p1 is statistically significantly greater than zero. The formula for the test statistic (P) is thus: P = p p p p n n 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 −( ) − +          ˆ( ˆ) where p1 = the proportion of the total protected population that is in proximity p2 = the proportion of the total nonprotected population that is in proximity pˆ = the overall proportion of the total population that is in proximity n1 = the total number of individuals in the protected population group in the population n2 = the total number of individuals in the nonprotected population group in the population (see for example Bain and Engelhardt 1989) The confidence interval for the ratio p1/p2 is computed as:

112 exp log .p p n n n n1 2 11 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 21 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 96     ± +( ) + +( ) + +( ) + +( )         − − − − where n1 = the total number of protected persons in the population1 n2 = the total number of nonprotected persons in the population n11 = the number of protected persons in the population in proximity n21 = the number of nonprotected persons in proximity (see, for example, Agresti 1990) Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. This method relies on the availability of information about which roadways are designated by state or local statute as hazardous materials transport routes. If no such statutes are in place, you must assume that all roadways in the study area are available for hazardous material transport. Additional information from the Phase 1 ESA may also be used to designate roadways as hazardous materials transport routes by virtue of being preferred access or egress routes for facilities that produce or use hazardous materials. Because no hard information is used regarding the type or volume of hazardous materials actually transported, the method relies on very conservative assumptions about what materials are being transported on what roadways. Results and their presentation. Considering the preliminary nature of this method, elaborate statistical tests are not required, although one has been included to aid in interpreting results. The objective of the method is merely to give an impression of whether the proximate buffer zone has a higher proportion of members of protected populations compared to the proportion of members of nonprotected populations. To quantify the possible distributive effect, simply compute the ratio (p1/p2) of the protected population proportion living in the proximate zone (p1) to the nonprotected population proportion living in the proximate zone (p2). A ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that there is a possible disproportionate pattern. Assessment. This is a semi-quantitative screening method to assess the impact of hazardous materials transport within the environmental justice framework. It only crudely quantifies the probability of a transport-related release by attempting to determine what routes are used for hazardous material transport. It relies on worst-case assumptions about the volume, time, and composition of possible spills. Within those limitations, however, it can provide a high-level determination as to whether there is an environmental justice issue that needs further, more careful analysis. Method 4. Hazardous materials transport—probability modeling When to use. This method is used to analyze the risk to protected and nonprotected populations associated with accidental release of hazardous materials in transit. Unlike Method 3, this 1 Protected persons are defined as individuals who belong to a protected population group.

113 method makes use of a hazardous material flow survey to estimate the types and volumes of materials transported over various segments of a transportation corridor. Thus, it allows a more detailed analysis of the distribution of hazardous materials exposure risk between protected and nonprotected populations. Analysis. This method depends heavily on the performance of a material flow survey, as described in greater detail in Guidance for Conducting Hazardous Materials Flow Surveys (U.S. DOT 1995). Step 1 – Conduct hazardous materials flow surveys. The objective of this step is to derive the hazardous material flow data for each segment of the project area and for any areas that will be used for comparison with the project area as a whole. A flow survey is an empirical technique that involves monitoring the hazardous material transport on a given route segment. It is accomplished by stopping all trucks that display U.S. DOT hazardous materials placards and examining their shipping papers. For comprehensive guidance on conducting hazardous material flow surveys, see U.S. DOT (1995). The following is a brief summary of the major steps described in that document: a) Identify the specific purpose of the study. In the present context, the reason for performing a flow study is to develop an accurate and defensible estimate of the probability that an accidental release of hazardous material will occur in the study area. An estimate of probability in turn relies on an accurate determination of the following information: • Number of trips involving hazardous material transport in any week, • Volume of hazardous material transported in each trip, • Type of material transported in each trip, and • Type of container. In some cases, the scope of the analysis may be limited to certain types of material. Any decision to limit the scope of the study should be based on an initial survey of the types of materials transported in the study area. For example, if it were known that the project corridor is or will be used for transport of spent fuel from a nuclear power station, the motivation for a risk analysis might be limited to accidental release of radioactive material. b) Gather baseline information. Before conducting the actual flow survey, review existing information to determine the routes within the study area over which hazardous materials will be transported, as described in Method 3, above. In addition, gather information about the condition and other attributes of the route, such as lane widths, road capacity, and shoulder conditions. The U.S. DOT Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) is a good source for this information. Gather route-specific information such as total traffic volume, volume of truck traffic, and accident history. Finally, use the techniques described under Method 3 to estimate the types of hazardous materials that might be transported in the study area. c) Design the study. Using the baseline information, determine what route segments are to be studied. Establish optimal locations for survey stations where trucks can be stopped for inspection with minimal disruption to the carrier and the flow of traffic. Decide over what

114 time periods the survey will be conducted. At a minimum, continuous 24-hour surveys of truck traffic over several days during at least two distinct seasons of the year is desirable. Based on the number of survey stations and the duration of sampling, determine the personnel needs for the survey. Two surveyors and several state police are the minimum staff that will be needed for each survey station. d) Perform the surveys. Inspect all trucks displaying hazardous materials placards that indicate the truck is carrying the type of material being studied. In general, it should not be necessary to physically inspect the contents. Trucks carrying hazardous materials are required to have shipping papers containing all the necessary information. A standard checklist should be developed and used to ensure that all essential information is obtained for each truck inspected. e) Analyze the data. Depending on the particular objectives of the study, the survey findings should be collated according to the type of truck, the type and volume of material carried, and the type and size of any containers used. It may also be desirable to analyze the density of hazardous material transport as a function of the time of day. Step 2 – Estimate the probability of accidental release. For each route segment, estimate the probability of an accidental release using event-tree analysis. The basic information required for this analysis—volume of traffic for each material type, volume of shipment, and container type—comes from the material flow survey performed in Step 1. The following factors may be taken into consideration: • Type and volume of hazardous material, • Roadway condition, • Traffic density, and • Type of container. The data gathered in Step 1 supports the event-tree analysis. The method for conducting the event-tree analysis, including normative probabilities for various types of accidental release scenarios, is given in Battelle (2001). An example event-tree is shown in Figure 4-4. An event-tree analysis involves assigning probabilities to each branch of the event-tree. The combined probability for each “leaf” of the tree (termini on the right of the event-tree) is computed by combining the probabilities for each branch leading into the leaf. Additional data sources for computing probabilities used in the event-tree analysis include the following: • U.S. Bureau of the Census Commodity Flow Survey (1997). • U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Information System. • U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Incident Data and Summary Statistics for Incident Years 1993–2002. • U.S. DOT, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS).

115 Urban area Rural area Small release Large release Release Accident occurs No release Figure 4-4. Example event-tree for release of hazardous material The outcome of this step is a probability estimate for both small and large spills for each type of material in each segment of the study area. Step 3 – Estimate the impact of accidental release. Whereas Step 2 consists of determining the probability that an accidental release will occur, this step involves estimating the level of impact a given type of release will have on people in the surrounding area. Define an impact function for each type and volume of material transported per the materials flow survey. Use published nighttime (i.e., worst-case) PADs to estimate the maximum size of the impact area for each material type and volume of spill. A simple dispersion model can be used to weight the impact based on the distance from the roadway and the PAD; for example, an impact score of 100.0 can be assigned at the site of the release and 0.0 at the PAD distance from the roadway, with linearly decreasing scores at intermediate distances from the roadway. This relationship can be expressed as follows: ( ) x x x P dP dI − = where Ix(d) = the impact at distance d of a spill of type x for which the PAD is Px If desired, a more accurate estimate of the impact can be obtained using air dispersion modeling, taking into account such factors as the volatility of the material, the influence of terrain, prevailing wind direction, and other meteorological conditions common in the study area. In that case, the impact function would not be assumed to be uniform in all directions.

116 Note that the impact is in arbitrary units. The scaling of the impact is unimportant, as long as it is proportional to the relative consequence of each type of spill at a given distance from the roadway. Step 4 – Develop a risk surface. Using the impact function and probability of each type of spill (type and volume of material), compute a risk function for each using the following equation: R d I d px x x ( ) = ( ) ×( )∑ where R(d) = the total risk score at distance d from the roadway for all types x of spills Ix(d) = the impact at distance d of each type of spill px = the probability of each type of spill Note that the value of d should be no greater than the PAD for each type of spill; that is, do not use negative values for any Ix(d). Use the risk function to develop a risk surface similar to the pollution surface described in Method 4 of Chapter 3. The risk surface amounts to a GIS layer that indicates for each grid cell the maximum risk of exposure to an accidental release of hazardous material. Step 5 – Perform demographic analysis. Using GIS, develop a population surface as described in Method 4 of Chapter 3. If road use analysis indicates that a significantly disproportionate number of members of protected populations use the roadway, this should also be taken into consideration. To determine this, develop the estimated numbers of protected and nonprotected individuals traveling on the road segment over a given time interval and compare these demographics to the maximum risk scores computed for each segment. The time interval chosen should be equal to the driving time at average speed to travel a distance equal to the average PAD for the materials studied. When analyzing the road use data, you should only count individuals who are traveling through the study area, not those living in the study area, so as to avoid double counting. Step 6 – Evaluate distributive effects. Using the techniques described in Steps 3 and 4 of Method 4 in Chapter 3, overlay the risk surface with the population surface to analyze potential distributive effects on risk of exposure to hazardous materials for protected versus nonprotected populations. Data needs, assumptions, and limitations. This method is data intensive, relying on existing databases and reports for historical accident data, roadway conditions, and demographic information. In addition, it requires data derived from hazardous material flow surveys, which are costly and labor intensive. In both cases, the method necessarily relies on extrapolation from relatively sparse data. Due to the high cost involved in collecting or developing truly complete information, it is necessary to assume worst case conditions. For example, because the volume of material flow data is unlikely to be great enough to allow modeling of diurnal patterns, the worst case nighttime PADS should be used to describe the area of impact of a spill. Finally, two aspects of

117 this method—risk assessment and air dispersion modeling—require expert guidance and specialized software. Results and their presentation. The results of this method are similar in many ways to the results of Method 4, Chapter 3. Refer to Step 4 of that method for guidance in the presentation of results. Assessment. Risk analysis is the most quantitative and detailed form of hazardous materials environmental justice assessment. As such, it can provide the most authoritative assessment of the effects of a project on the distribution of risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. This method requires a high level of modeling expertise and extensive data input. Due to the complexity of the method, it should only be undertaken if a screening study has indicated that the amount or frequency of hazardous material transport is not evenly distributed between protected and nonprotected populations. RESOURCES 1) United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. The applicable Web site is http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/html-doc/lv3.htm. This Web site provides information on LandView TM III (environmental, geographic and demographic statistics and graphics tool) as it relates to EPA environmental justice, risk- based corrective actions, hazardous materials regulations and brownfield programs. The Web site also provides links to U.S. Census Bureau and Right-to-Know Network Web sites discussing LandView™ III. The new LandView™ 5 is discussed at http://landview. census.gov/geo/landview/lv5/lv5.html. Whereas LandView™ 5 contains only information from Summary File 1, the forthcoming LandView™ 6 will also contain selected Summary File 3 data. 2) Federal and state environmental database resources for assessing hazardous materials: • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), National Priorities List (NPL) (Superfund Sites), found at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl. • U.S. EPA, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act List (CERCLIS), found at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites. • U.S. EPA List of Facilities that Treat, Store, and/or Dispose of Hazardous Waste (RCRIS), found at http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris. • U.S. EPA Sites with Previous Hazardous Materials Spills (ERNS), found at http://www.epa.gov/region4/r4data/erns. • U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS), found at http://hazmat.dot.gov/abhmis.htm. • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS), found at http://www.fmcsa.dot. gov/factsfigs/mcmis/mcmiscatalog.htm.

118 REFERENCES Agresti, A. 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons. American Society for Testing Methods (ASTM). 2003. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process-Standard Designation E1527- 00. American Society for Testing Methods. Bain, L.J., and M. Engelhardt. 1989. Introduction to Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing. Battelle. 2001. Comparative Risks of Hazardous Materials and Non-Hazardous Materials Truck Shipment Accidents/Incidents: Final Report. Washington, DC: Federal Motor Carrier Association. Brown, D.F., A. J. Polacastro, W.E. Dunn, R.A. Carhart, M.A. Lazaro, W.A. Freeman, and M. Krumpolc. 2000. Development of the Table of Initial Isolation And Protective Action Distances for the 2000 Emergency Response Guidebook. ANL/DIS-00-1, Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory. Chakraborty, J., and M.P. Armstrong. 1995. Using Geographic Plume Analysis to Assess Community Vulnerability to Hazardous Accidents. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 19, No. 5-6 (November-December), pp. 341-356. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. 42 U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq. Erkut, E., and V. Verter. 1998. Modeling of Transport Risk for Hazardous Materials. Operations Research, Vol. 46, No. 5 (September-October), pp. 625-642. Margai, F.L. 2001. Health Risks and Environmental Inequity: A Geographical Analysis of Accidental Releases of Hazardous Materials. The Professional Geographer. Vol. 53, No. 3 (August), pp. 422-434. Mills, G.S., and K.S. Neuhauser. 2000. Quantitative Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment of Transportation. Risk Analysis, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 377-384. President, Proclamation. 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Executive Order 12898, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No.32 (February 16), pp. 7629–7633. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. 42 U.S.C. s/s 6901 et seq., as amended. Siegal, S., and N.J. Castellan. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT). 2003. Non-Radioactive Hazardous Materials (NRHM) Routing. Available at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/TRF/te/nrhm.htm. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1998. 1997 Commodity Flow Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.

119 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. A Resource Handbook on DOE Risk Assessment. Department of Energy Transportation Risk Assessment Working Group Technical Subcommittee. Washington, DC: DOE. U.S. Department of Transportation. 1995. Guidance for Conducting Hazardous Materials Flow Surveys. DOT-VNTSC-RSPA-94-2. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Integration of Environmental Justice into OSWER Policy, Guidance, and Regulatory Development. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ej/ ejndx.htm#ejpolicy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. LandViewTM III: A Tool for Community Brownfields Projects. EPA 500-F-98-006. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Available at http://epa.gov/swerosps/bf/pdf/lv3.pdf. Zhang, J., J. Hodgson, and E. Erkut. 2000. Using GIS to Assess the Risks of Hazardous Materials Transport in Networks. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 121, No. 2 (March), pp. 316-329.

Next: Chapter 5 - Water Quality and Drainage »
Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 532: Effective Methods for Environmental Justice Assessment is designed to enhance understanding and to facilitate consideration and incorporation of environmental justice into all elements of the transportation planning process, from long-range transportation systems planning through priority programming, project development, and policy decisions. The report offers practitioners an analytical framework to facilitate comprehensive assessments of a proposed transportation project’s impacts on affected populations and communities.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!