Urban Environmental Quality and Human Health: Conceiving a Sustainable Future

CONTENTS OF CURRICULUM UNIT 08.07.05

  1. Unit Guide
  1. Introduction
  2. Overview
  3. Rationale
  4. Strategy
  5. Background
  6. Notes and Resources - For Teacher
  7. Resources for students (research) and teachers
  8. Pictures
  9. Resources - For Teacher
  10. Bibliography
  11. Appendix A
  12. Appendix B
  13. Appendix C

Considering Case Studies of Chemical Contamination

Jeffrey C. Davis

Published September 2008

Tools for this Unit:

Background

Exxon Valdez

In 1989, the Exxon Valdez left the oil port in Valdez, Alaska. She was carrying over 53 million gallons of crude oil towards Los Angeles, CA. An expert harbor pilot guided the ship through the Valdez Narrows before letting the captain, Joseph Hazelwood, take control once out into the regular shipping lanes. The captain steered out of the normal shipping lanes in order to avoid icebergs. Approximately two hours after leaving Valdez, Captain Hazelwood retired to his stateroom, leaving instructions with the third mate, who was driving, to return to the regular shipping lanes at a certain point. About an hour later, just after midnight, the ship ran into a reef that cut a hole in her side releasing nearly 11 million gallons of thick crude oil into the beautiful, pristine Prince William Sound. The only access to the sound is by air or boat, so clean up was problematic. Before the oil stopped spilling, 11,000 square miles of ocean were covered in oil and thousands of animals were killed. As many as half a million sea birds died, at least 1,000 sea otters, hundreds of harbor seals, hundreds of bald eagles, and billions of salmon and herring eggs were destroyed.

Some guiding questions when analyzing this case include, was Captain Hazelwood under the influence of alcohol? Was he at fault for the Exxon Valdez disaster? Was the event malicious or merely negligent, or perhaps neither? Who should pay and how much? Why didn't Able Seaman, Robert Kagan steer the Exxon Valdez back into the shipping lane as instructed? Why didn't Captain Hazelwood make sure there was someone on duty to watch where they were going?

The cause of the incident was investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board, which identified the four following factors as contributing to the grounding of the vessel:

  • The third mate failed to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue and excessive workload.
  • The master failed to provide navigation watch, possibly due to impairment under the influence of alcohol.
  • Exxon Shipping Company failed to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the Exxon Valdez.
  • The United States Coast Guard failed to provide an effective vessel traffic system. 1 4

The Board made a number of recommendations, such as changes to the work patterns of Exxon crew in order to address the causes of the accident

Exxon was fined five billion dollars in punitive damages. An appeal reduced the award to four billion dollars, even though the judge thought five was fair. When Exxon appealed again, the judge raised it to $ 4.5 billion (plus interest), perhaps for their arrogance. Eventually, the fine rested at $ 2.5 billion dollars. Exxon appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and in June 2008, the Court vacated the $ 2.5 billion award and sent the case back to a lower court, finding the damages were excessive and that Exxon's actions were "worse than negligent but less than malicious." 1 5 Ultimately, the damages were set at $ 507.5 million dollars, approximately 1/10 of the original judgment.

The spill from the Exxon Valdez is the biggest spill in US territory. The nature of the Prince William Sound, with its protected coves, exposed shores, and the diverse shore lines including sheer cliffs and rocky beaches with boulder sized rocks all the way to coarse sandy gravel made clean up complex. Cleaning the damage caused by the spill was difficult due to the physical conditions and was made worse because nobody had been confronted with these conditions before - some methods were being tried with no experience of success in those circumstances. "…An important observation that resulted from the Exxon Valdez oil spill was that natural cleaning processes, on both sheltered and exposed beaches, were in many cases very effective at degrading oil. It took longer for some sections of shoreline to recover from some of the invasive cleaning methods (hot water flushing in particular) than from the oiling itself." 1 6

The cost of the Exxon Valdez disaster goes beyond the damage to the ship and the coastline. The captain and crew in charge paid in reputation, fines, and community service. Thousands of animals were killed or injured. And the cost of the clean up exceeded one billion dollars including losses associated with declining fishing industry and rehabilitation of oil soaked animals (each sea otter saved cost $ 40,000). 1 7

Since that incident, ships hauling oil have more stringent rules for staying off reefs and rocks. Double hulled ships are the norm. And the lessons learned by the clean up process make future disasters like the Exxon Valdez unlikely to reoccur.

Hurricane Katrina

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina blew into Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. There have been books, movies, and on going arguments assessing blame for parts of the human disaster and destruction of the natural environment. Those issues and controversies are well documented. In addition to the flooding, there were 595 oil and chemical spills caused by the storm. 1 8

Some of those spills were unnoticed until much later. The hurricane uncovered an old oil spill near Galveston that stained Pelican Island Bridge. That spill came from "an old tank farm no one knew about." 1 8 What do we about that? Who is responsible for cleaning up that one? Other incidents caused by the hurricane include "harmful chemicals … in the air in Mississippi - officials don't know the source." "[Some] of the 54 hazardous-waste sites in the storm's path show that in some cases the hurricane re-released long-buried pollution." A storage tank belonging to Cytec Industries was "leaking sulfuric acid at one-gallon every minute." The storm surge moved giant 193-foot diameter tanks more than 100 feet, 450,000 gallons of oil poured into the surrounding countryside. The tank's containment pond, meant to hold 130 percent of the tanks' contents was full of water. The companies that own the tanks believed the weight of the tank would hold them down, but the oil is lighter than water, and they move. In 1961, a tank in Hackberry, LA was floated more than six miles. Ivor van Heerden, the Director of the Louisiana State University Center for the Study of the Public Health Impacts of Hurricanes said in a 2003 report, "A high proportion of [the tanks] are not properly tied down." 1 8 Is it faulty equipment? Is it simply the cost of doing business on the gulf coast?

Who is responsible for the 595 leaks? Should the companies that owned the facilities that leaked take responsibility for being unprepared? What about the Army Corps of Engineers, who built the levees? Are they responsible? When it was suggested that the oil companies did not prepare enough for contingencies that should be prepared for in that region, spokesman Larry Wall, of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, said, "We don't like to spill oil. Oil that spills is of no value." Does that suggest that Mr. Wall or the oil company only care about money, or does he simply recognize that is the reality of how they are perceived, so he responds in kind? Wall added, in discussing preparation for storms, "Nature can always topple you." 1 8

Bill Hoagland, a senior advisor for Senator Frist, R-Tennessee, when questioned about the $ 200 billion estimate 1 9 for Hurricane Katrina relief by the federal government, figured the amount to be closer to $ 100 billion by adding some numbers. Maximum federal supplemental disaster assistance is $ 26,200 per household. If 1.1 million households were affected, that's around $ 30 billion. The "working assumption is that there are 400,000 who have lost their jobs and qualify for unemployment assistance. The average benefit is $ 250 per week, which would be $ 2.5 billion for six months. Food stamps would be another $ 2.5 billion. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates farm-related losses to be $ 1 billion. If you add Hoagland's estimate of $ 30 billion for flood insurance claims (is this fed responsibility?) and $ 2 billion in federal tax incentives; that adds up to almost $ 70 billion. These numbers do not include "Federal property such as weather and military stations and public infrastructure." The Federal government picks up 75% - 100% of rebuilding public infrastructure (roads and bridges). There was no number for that cited, but it is not likely to be $ 200 billion. 1 9 Hoagland was concerned, in 2005 that the $ 200 billion estimate "could become a self fulfilling prophecy"

Other states wonder why their disasters are not getting the same fiscal attention as from Katrina. 2 0 Finding the actual cost of Katrina to the fed is not easy but they certainly have costs beyond the money to rebuild infrastructure, provide unemployment benefits, and cover insurance payments. Families had to move, replace their belongings, rebuild their social lives, rebuild families, and reestablish their credit.

In addition to the actual costs of rebuilding, there are the undocumented costs of profiteers and sub sub sub contractors. The Washington Post's Joby Warrick found that there are at least three or four layers of subcontracting for cleaning up basic hurricane damage, like roof repairs and refuse disposal. These multi-layer subcontracting systems increase the cost to the taxpayer from the actual cost of the work from 40% to 1,700%. 2 1 This suggests that the costs of Hurricane Katrina are higher than the damage to the infrastructure and direct human misery. The expenses also include the unfair, increase in cost to the taxpayers.

The cost of Hurricane Katrina will not be known for a long time. Parts of New Orleans are still disaster areas. Trailers used to house residents temporarily are still inhabited - years beyond the recommended time. There are now concerns that the chemicals in the trailers, which were not designed for full-time residency, will cause serious health issues for the victims of the hurricane. Some of the failures of the levy system have been corrected, or at least addressed, but for the most part, there is little reason for the residents of New Orleans to have confidence if another hurricane like Katrina comes ashore.

Acid Canyon

Between 1944 and 1964, the Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) disposed of water that was contaminated with plutonium and possibly other radioactive substances by pouring it into the south fork of Acid Canyon.

Acid Canyon, in Los Alamos NM was donated by LANL to the county of Los Alamos in 1967 to be used as the county wished. The county made it into a park with bridges and hiking trails for the citizens of Los Alamos to enjoy. The canyon is located between a skateboard park and the aquatic center - a public swimming pool. Thirty-two years later, in 1999, LANL found "hot spots" of plutonium in the canyon. The bridges and trails were closed. Later, in 2001, LANL commenced some cleanup endeavors. After eight years and $ 1.2 million, parents are still telling their kids to stay away from Acid Canyon. 2 2

Should LANL have been more concerned about hazardous substances under their care? Was the race to build the atomic bomb a legitimate reason to be lax in terms of "throwing out the trash?" (my quotes) Was fear of nuclear war with the Soviet Union an excuse for reckless behavior by the government? Was the relative isolation and remoteness of Los Alamos on the Pajarito Plateau grounds for careless conduct concerning the environment? Was it accidental or deliberate indifference?

Chemical and radioactive liquid wastes including solvents, metals, uranium, tritium, and between two and twelve grams of plutonium 239,and 240 2 3 , 2 4 were discharged directly into a tributary drainage of Acid Canyon prior to 1951. 2 4 There is still some question about the canyon's condition today. Who is culpable and what is the extent of their responsibility?

According to Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (CCNS), LANL measured 7,780 picoCuries/gram (piC/g) of plutonium, which they said was about 250 times the "safe" amount, 280 piC/g. LANL proposed to clean up the canyon to an average of 280 picoCuries. The canyon is about 1,000 feet long. The contamination is mostly limited to the lower 650 feet. Since LANL averaged the entire length and all the layers of the streambed cut, it is more than likely that the actual amount of picoCuries/gram of plutonium in the "hot" parts is higher. In addition, the 280 piC/g is 10 times higher than the level of clean up LANL does on LANL property (i.e., 25 piC/g). 2 5

In Livermore, CA, the University of California, who also manages LANL, left another plutonium mess. In California, it is not legal for levels of plutonium to exceed 2.5 piC/g. Why is there such a difference in "acceptable" contamination between Livermore and Los Alamos? Some would say it is because there are more minorities within a 50-mile radius of Los Alamos, more than any other Department of Energy (DOE) site. Also, 15 percent of those people live below the poverty line. 2 5

The Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (CCNS) and Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board made inquiries regarding these questions and LANL responded. The lab explained that the radioactive dose that children would receive if they were playing along the stream channel for one-hour a day for 200 days would be less than the limits established for members of the public under EPA guidelines. 2 6 In any case, the DOE's principle of ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) was implemented and in November, 2001, LANL brought in giant vacuum trucks and special containers. They used the vacuums to suck up nearly 400 cubic yards of contaminated soil. The vacuum machine included a method for collecting any dust generated by the operation and all the sediments and soils were taken to a special low-level radioactive waste disposal area. 2 6

Parents still refuse to let their kids play in the county park at Acid Canyon, even though LANL says it's okay. There is a feeling that someone is working on it, or that LANL will do everything they can. 2 2 The vacuum clean up took less than a month to complete and cost $ 1.2 million. Additional costs included analyzing the sediment of lakes in the area for contamination and radioactivity. 2 6

Tecton Energy

In February of 2008, executives of Tecton Energy, of Houston, TX announced they were considering suing Santa Fe County for stopping them from drilling exploratory wells in their efforts to find oil in the Galisteo Basin. 2 7

Drilling Santa Fe (DSF) is a non-profit (501c3) organization created to protect the Galisteo Basin from exploitation by companies interested in oil exploration and extraction. DSF has an effective public relations arm that provides data, anecdotes, charts, graphs, and pictures 2 8to support their case. They claim that Tecton Energy will render the Galisteo Basin ugly and dangerous, lead to diminishing land values, and destroy natural and cultural sites as well as religious and sacred sites. They argue that the water supply will be irreparably harmed, wild life habitat destroyed, and quality of life permanently damaged. 2 9

Tecton says they are environmentally sensitive. 3 0 For example, they plan to drill responsibly using "closed loop" drilling practices. This is where the water and chemicals used to make the oil flow more easily is recovered and collected in tanks. 3 1 This process of using the fluids is called "fracking," and it is controversial. Simply put, fracking is when fluids are forced into cracks in the earth to make them wider so the oil will flow easier. 3 2 The EPA came to the conclusion that fracking "poses little or no threat" to drinking water. However, the Oil and Gas Accountability Project claims that fluids used [in fracking] are carcinogenic, that the original EPA report was altered, and that an earlier draft "suggested unregulated fracturing poses a threat to human health [and] fracturing fluids may pose a threat to [the safety of] drinking water." 3 3 Tecton Energy's old website 3 4 states their commitment to being environmentally sensitive by using "available technology to insure safe and clean operations … take care to not harm the air and water around us … conduct activities quietly and discretely … to not disturb wildlife." 3 1

Not everyone is convinced that Tecton Energy will be a good steward. Phaedra Haywood, of the Santa Fe New Mexican, writes of fracking, "The specific ingredients in each company's frack fluids are deemed proprietary by the industry, meaning operators aren't required to disclose what is in them." People who live near wells where hydraulic fracturing has been performed have reported serious health problems they believe are tied to chemicals in fracking fluid." 3 2 Being from a desert environment, New Mexicans have long kept a close eye on water use. "By some accounts, it takes millions of gallons of water to drill [a well]. Tecton Energy president Bill Dirks estimated his company would likely use 40,000 to 75,000 gallons of water per well." 3 2The number of wells Tecton would drill is unknown. The source of that water is also unknown.

One of the most contentious issues around oil well drilling concerns contaminated drinking water. Bob Gallagher, president of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association, states, "Not a drop of water that's been delivered to a consumer (in New Mexico) has ever been contaminated by oil and gas activities." Yet Mark Fesmire, Director of New Mexico's Oil Conservation Division, and other state employees, point to 743 self-reported cases of groundwater contamination in the state. 3 3 A not uncommon perspective of oil wells is eloquently stated by Ted Falgout, a Port Director in Port Fourchon, LA, "It's OK to have an ugly spot in your backyard," Falgout says, "if that spot has oil coming out of it." 3 5

The Tecton Energy saga is only just beginning.

Comments:

Add a Comment

Characters Left: 500

Unit Survey

Feedback