I had an interesting, if brief, telephone conversation
yesterday with Michael Jacoby. Mike is on something of a personal mission to
correct what he sees as a major flaw in the chemical-reporting and
emergency-response programs in the US. That problem is the inaccuracies in
location information provided in the EPA chemical reporting programs.
Bad Location
Information
You can see a quick visual display of the problem by looking
at a relatively new and innovative tool
from the State of Texas, the HOTCOG (Heart of Texas Council of
Governments) Tier II Facilities Locator Map. While the majority of the
locations appear to be accurate (and I just did a visual confirmation on the
system (ie: there is a building at the location that could be such a facility)
not an on-the ground survey) there are some locations that the marked location
clearly does not reflect the location on the ground.
For example, if you enter the address (the tool will only
search by address) of FM 27, Wortham, TX (taken from the Tier II reporting
data), you will find this address marked out in the middle of nowhere on
Farm-to-Market Road 27. Nothing in the vicinity looks like it could be the
storage of hazardous material.
If instead you look at the intersection of W. Conch Avenue
and N. 2nd Street in Wortham, TX you will see a Tier II location
icon just south of that intersection. Clicking on the icon you learn that it is
the location of Verizon-MCI – WTHMTX (presumably a cell tower with a propane
powered back-up generator that necessitated a Tier II report) and there is
nothing in this residential neighborhood that looks like a Verizon-MCI
facility.
Presumably the local volunteer fire department (VFD) knows
where this cell tower is. But, as Mike points out, if an adjacent VFD has to
respond to this location because the local VFD has responding elsewhere, they
will not have the Tier II information available to them warning them of the
hazardous material at the location. This could put their lives in danger or
cause them to respond in a way that endangers the local community.
Correcting Location
Information
At the bottom of Mike’s
article at DomesticPreparedness.com, he outlines the method that the EPA
has put into place to allow corrections to be made to Tier II reporting data. The
corrected data is provided to the EPA, which presumably vets the data through
the reporting facility and then corrects the data on their system.
But if you look at the map at the HOTCOG site discussed
earlier you can see the magnitude of the problem. The four Texas counties
highlighted on the map are mainly rural in nature (the fifth, less rural,
county in the group, McClenden, has its own map). Even
if you ignore the oil and gas facilities (this is in the heart of the oil
patch) there are still a large number of Tier II sites.
While there is no specific requirement for local fire
departments or Local Emergency Preparedness Committees (LEPC) to vet and
correct Tier II data in their jurisdictions, they are the only agencies that
will specifically need to access this data. They would use this data for
emergency planning or execution activities, so one would like to think that
they would review and validate the information as part of their planning
process.
No one else (government agencies, anyway) has the any real
way to validate this information. The EPA does not have the manpower to vet
these reported addresses, nor do State or regional authorities.
Source of Problem
The reason for this problem is that the Tier II reporting
software provides for filling in blanks for ‘Street’ location for ‘where
hazardous materials are present’. The software accepts any data entered into
the blank with no way to verify that the information is complete or accurate. A
simple misspelling of the street name could place the location of the facility in
a completely different sector of a city or county.
In rural locations where there are no street addresses for
many facilities a single street name may be used to refer to a number of
different locations (search for “FCR 790, Donnie, TX 75838” on the HOTCOG site
and see at least five widely separated facilities with that ‘address’). Even in
an urban area, a single street address may cover a large number of buildings
within a complex.
Mike thinks that there is a simple solution to the problem,
the same solution that has been used by the CFATS Top Screen data collection
tool. Mike would like to see all Tier II and Tier III reporting include a GPS
location (latitude and longitude). This won’t remove all errors in reporting,
but it will help avoid those inaccuracies that are due to the fact that street
addresses are not always available of sufficiently accurate in describing a
location.
BTW: It looks like there may be a large number of unreported
Tier II facilities within a mile or so radius of that FCR 790 Donnie, TX ‘address’.
Most of the white rectangles on that satellite image are either active or inactive
crude oil pumping/storage sites. The active sites would almost certainly have
to be reported as having Tier II chemicals on site.
1 comment:
In Texas, facilities are required to report a street address, unless they do not have an assigned 911 address. Then the facilities must report Lat/Long of the storage site.
• Facilities assigned either a Street Address or 911 Emergency Services Address MUST provide this address in the Street Address field.
• Rural facilities that have NOT been assigned a 911 Address should enter “Lat/Long” in the Street Address field, indicating that the Latitude and Longitude coordinates for the facility will be provided on the next tab (the Location & ID tab).
Some facilities do make errors when they make out their reports and fail to correct them the following year. That is a problem, but no one wants to pay to ground truth the data. EPA, and Texas TCEQ, wait until a facility has a reportable accident and then verifies the reported data as part of the investigation. They facility then gets an appropriate fine for incorrect data.
Sometimes Texas TCEQ issues a contract to check reported data. But I've only a seen TCEQ verify data under the Risk Management Program and not the TIER II program. Sometimes the fire department that receives the TIER II report will go to the facility for an inspection. However, that doesn't always occur.
Requiring all facilities to report LAT/LONG with a physical address+ is probably the best method since the data fields are already there.
Daryl Lee Spiewak, CEM
Waco, TX
Post a Comment