Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 100


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 99
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 LandViewTM 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 LandViewTM III is based on 1990 Census data. The soon- to-be-released LandViewTM 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. 101