Planning for the Worst: How to Keep Our Communities Safe From Toxic Spills

Right now, the majority of the country has no plan in place for storm related toxic chemical leaks. Luckily, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a new regulation called the Worst Case Discharge Rule to require chemical storage facilities to create a plan for discharges that are created by storm events. Today to discuss this topic, we are joined by Maya Nye, Federal Policy Director for Coming Clean,  and Sean Jackson, Water Programs Coordinator for Clean Water Action. www.cleanwater.org/podcast 

Make a special gift to support our podcast today at www.cleanwater.org/donate

Transcript

Maya Nye (00:00):

These substances are in large part derived from fossil fuels, if not entirely. Right? So not only do they pose a hazard to water at this phase in their life, right? It's stored in these above ground storage tanks and environmental justice communities that are vulnerable to climate disaster, right? So not just there, but they're part of a system of water contamination, right from the very beginning from fossil fuel extraction.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (00:35):

Everyone. Welcome to we all live downstream, a clean water action podcast. In each episode, we will be interviewing leading environmental and clean water activists about their work in the field. We'll dive deep into topics from drinking water and climate change to environmental justice, plastic pollution, and toxic chemicals. I'm your host, Jenny Vickers hip the national communications manager for clean water action. So imagine you get a thunderstorm warning on your phone. You light a few candles in case the lights go out and make sure that you cancel your evening walk. You do everything you can to prepare what the storm might bring, but did you know that the same storm could contaminate your drinking water right now? The majority of the country has no plan in place for a storm related toxic chemical leaks. Luckily, the EPA has proposed a new regulation called the worst case discharge rule. That is quite frankly a long time coming. This regulatory action will require chemical storage facilities to create a plan for discharges that are created by storm events today to discuss this topic, we are joined by may and I federal policy director for coming clean, a nonprofit collaborative of environmental health and environmental justice experts working to reform the chemical and energy industries. So they are no longer a source of harm. And Sean Jackson, our very own water programs coordinator here for clean water action. Welcome to we all live downstream. So happy to have you here today.

Maya Nye (02:01):

Thanks for having me

Sean Jackson (02:03):

Happy to be here, Jenny.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (02:05):

So before we get started into toxic chemicals, very heavy subject, I want to know a little bit more about your background, where you're from, where you live, you know, how, how did you get started as an activist?

Maya Nye (02:21):

That's a, that's a big question. I a huge question. So yeah, so I work, I work for coming clean now and, and but I'm the former spokesperson for people concerned about chemical safety which is an environmental justice organization located in the chemical valley of West Virginia. And we work affiliates with the environmental justice help Alliance for chemical policy reform. And <laugh> chemical disasters is what got me in this work and personally experiencing them at an early age, living on the fence line. Yeah.

Sean Jackson (02:56):

I started my environmental regulatory advocacy journey somewhere around 2013 when I was working in the insurance industry and went to a talk at the local aquarium where they talked about, you know, the world being on fire, as we know. And I walked out and said, I, I don't think I'm doing enough and decided to make a try to make a life at. So I've been working in the clean water space since 2015 right. A little bit before I got my graduate degree from the university of Maryland college park school, public policy. And had been previously working at American rivers were interned for the Maryland league of conservation voters. I have a strong history in water infrastructure and trying to keep urban and rural areas clean and having clean water.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (04:06):

Thank you both. And thanks for taking the time to speak with us today. And I know that clean water action has, you know, prioritized this EPA proposal, the worst case rule and just our listeners want to know probably what it is. What is E Eva proposing? Why is it important and what communities would be most impacted by this new rule?

Maya Nye (04:32):

Yeah, so, I mean, so it's, it's called the hazardous substance worst case discharge planning rule, which is a mouthful. And essentially what it does is it requires facilities that are storing particular kinds of hazardous substances that have been deemed by EPA to be hazardous primarily in above ground storage tanks that they have to plan and prepare for what will happen and how they're going to respond whenever a spill occurs. I, I, I normally avoid the word spill, but that that's what they use. So we'll use it here. So it's basically just trying to plan for what will, how they will respond to these chemical spill. So that's sort of the, the nutshell of, of what the rule is and why is it so important? I mean, you know, there, there have been numbers of numerous failures of above ground storage tanks across the country, and there aren't protections in place that require facilities to prepare for these events and how they will impact the water.

                And, you know, I can, I can give a personal example of, you know, in the chemical valley, back in 2014, our water was contaminated because an for, for at least a week, and actually the chemical lingered in the water for a lot longer, because an above ground storage tank leaked a mile and a half upstream of a drinking water source of, of the largest drinking water source in West Virginia, it affected 300,000 thousand people across nine counties. And so who would be affected by this rule? It would be, you know, it would be all of the people downstream of the water there, you know, but predominantly it's communities of color and low income communities. They bear the disproportionate burden of chemical disasters, whether they're in water or air. And you know, a number of these facilities are located predominantly and disproportionately in these communities. So, and they experience the, you know, the cumulative impacts of, of disaster after disaster. So whether it's a, a water disaster and air disaster or multiple ones they ex you know, this community's experience all of that. So I don’t if Sean has anything to add.

Sean Jackson (06:42):

Yeah, I'll just add that. This is an extremely important piece of regulation because the right to clean water, clean drinking water is fundamental to our health. And when a storm event happens, you at least want your fundamental rights working. So you have a hurricane that comes through and maybe you know, you're worried about the street lights being out or whatever you at least want the water that you're drinking to be trusted. And that's always true. But the fact that we don't have a plan in place in the case of such an event really needs to be corrected the lack of ability for us to fully plan. And a, as Maya mentioned, a, a lot of these communities are black, Latino indigenous populations. And they might not even know these facilities exist in their community. So we need to be upfront about our ability to protect everyone and ensure that we have safe, clean drinking water, and let's not forget the animals <laugh> fish, fish, and wildlife need to be safe too. And, you know, some of these chemicals at very low, low quantities can really show massive detriment to both people and, and the environment.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (08:27):

So, you know, it's, it's important that EPAs doing this. Now they're proposing to require planning for chemical storage tanks now, but what prompted it have spills been increasing? Are they more noteworthy? I know Maya, you mentioned this happened years ago. Why wasn't it done sooner?

Maya Nye (08:47):

Well, what prompted it was Congress? Right. I mean, initially this was, this was part of what Congress intended for EPA to do, but the problem is, is if they haven't done it. So why haven't they, you're going to have to ask EPA that I'll be honest with you. I'm not sure, unfortunately, it, it was a lawsuit that, that forced them to issue these rules and, and you know so actually, you know, there's a little bit of back history with this and the fact that after the 2014 Lincoln in Virginia you know, we wanted to do something and we realized that, you know, this is something that after the 1972 clean water act was issued, EPA was required to issue regulations that required these kinds of facilities near bodies of water to take measures, to prevent chemical spills. And they never did.

                And so the environmental justice health Alliance that I mentioned, the people concerned about chemical safety, my group, we were affiliates them and NRDC, we sued to get EPA to issue regulations that actually would prevent these kinds of leaks, right. They agreed to do it, and then they abdicated their responsibility in it. And so then we, you know, then EPA was also, they were also supposed to issue these worst case spills regulations under amendments to the clean water act in 1990. And they didn't and those, they were required to have robust hazard, substance spill response planning for the most dangerous chemical facilities and that because of their proximity to water, that they would pose a serious threat to human health in the environment. So back in, I think it was in 2020, Sean, you might have to correct me there, but in our DC, E J H a and clean water action filed a suit against the EPA because they failed to require the spill response plans.

Sean Jackson (10:47):

That's right. 2020 we entered litigation with EPA to force their hand a little bit. I don't want to get S SLAPP their hand too much because they're doing it now. But yeah, the fact is that this has been a long time coming and something that we've known would be, and could be an issue for a while now. And back in 1990 Congress put this in into law that this should happen and has not happened thus far. And frankly, what put our advocacy groups into it is, is the events like what happened in West Virginia that Maya mentioned at the top. So in 1990, the, these regulations were put into place because we knew that it would be an issue. And frankly it not happening is a shame because people have been put at risk and hurt by it. And we're just glad to finally have that corrected.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (12:05):

So what kinds of chemicals are we talking about? Like what kinds of chemicals could leak and what damage could they do if this regulation isn't put in place?

Maya Nye (12:15):

Yeah. So the chemicals, again, that I said that, you know, EPA is defined as like the most hazardous substances. So, you know, there are like a number of pesticides or polychlorinated by phenol. So those are persistent organic pollutants, and those bioaccumulate in our food supply and in our bodies, you know Petri chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic. So yeah, those are the kinds of chemicals that that would leak. I mean, so they're you know, EPA recognizes them as some of the worst of the worst, right. That can do the most damage. So those are the kinds of chemicals. Well, I mean, you know, we saw what happens in West Virginia, what happens without these kinds of regulations, you know, you could contaminate an entire drinking water supply for, you know, a third of the state and, you know, and it was frankly it was, you know, people were restored water in about a week, but the, the chemical lingered in the water system for like three around three months you know, so what kind of damage, you know there wasn't much known actually about that particular chemical and, and unfortunately this particular rule wouldn't exactly prevent another elk river chemical leak, but for substances, like the ones that I mentioned, you know it could, it could prevent a massive drinking water contamination of, you know, massive fish, you know, and it could, and it could contribute to the cumulative impacts that environmental justice communities are, you know, that I mentioned before disproportionately bearing from these kinds of chemical disasters.

Sean Jackon (13:55):

Really quickly, the, the terrible thing about this is we know what kinds of chemicals could leak, but the amount of damage they have already done because of the lack of this regulation being in place, we don't know. And this will help alleviate that. I mean, we had hurricane Harvey a few years ago and we know that 350 plus chemicals got into the drinking water because of that hurricane and the amount of damage, because there was a lack of enforcement or ability to understand exactly what happened. And there was no plan in place for these facilities. We could not state the amount of damage that happened to people's health, because as Maya mentioned, they bioaccumulate. So it might happen over time and you might, might not be able to tie the human health risks or environmental risks specifically to the leak without good information. So one thing that comes out of this regulation is we're going to have much better in information about what spills happen and how much happens in any particular water body. So it's exciting.

Maya Nye (15:14):

It's also going to give us somewhat of a better understanding of, of like the, the reality of the tanks out there that do pose this harm. Because right now, you know, like, I think kinda like what Shawn's saying, we don't, there's no sort of system in place that actually, you know, that, that addresses that.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (15:31):

Yeah. And, and you mentioned weather, you know, with climate change, extreme weather events and super storms and flooding you know, what are the special considerations that need to be thought out when planning out this kind of ruling for the modern era, you know, is this kind of rule prepared for the impacts of climate change?

Sean Jackson (15:52):

Well, I mean, the one thing is this rule in general is going to help us be more specific to the kinds of challenges that we get from climate change. As we know, storm events are increasing both in size severity and consistency. And I mean, I, you know, here in I live close to DC, the number of flooding events that we're getting have increased exponentially in the last 10 years. So if we had had this in place, when it first happened, the amount of spills that would have, we would have better information about would be so much more. And it, frankly, we're, we, we were short on time and it's good that we're getting this in place because the, the effect of climate change here right now, and the ability for us to be prepared for that is really important. As Maya mentioned, a lot of the worst places, worst effects of climate change are happening in communities that have very little in the way of protections in a lot of ways due to racial injustice throughout the centuries. So this is one way that we can hope to start to alleviate that and to start to protect them from the, the disaster that is climate change, the oncoming disaster that is climate change.

Maya Nye (17:39):

If I can just add onto that and say that, you know, there actually is one of the drawbacks with the way that this rule's currently proposed. And that EPA is thinking about these tanks, sort of, you have to have like a massive amount of, of a chemical in one tank. And we know that that's not the reality for most environmental justice communities or most communities where these tanks exist. You know, they have multiple tanks and they may not get to this particular threshold, but if you add them up, it gets way over this threshold, that EPA considers. So that's one of the things that we're hoping that EPA does as they continue this process is they think about those kinds of things, particularly in instances like hurricane Harvey, right. Because, you know, when a hurricane comes through it, doesn't just say, eh, I think I'll, I'll pick that tank, you know, to, to hit and, and not that one over there. Right. It does all of them at the same time. So,

Sean Jackson (18:31):

Yeah, that's an important piece of the severity of, of the storms that we're getting from. Climate change is that they're, they're going to hit, it's not like a tank gets knocked over. It's like they're going to hit the, a whole region. And that's also why we're and trying to address the range by which the facilities are being asked to do these plans. EPA is recommending a half mile from navigable waters. And we think because of the severity of storms from climate change, that should be bumped up to at least a mile, just because of the amount of water that's going to come through and knocking, knock these tanks over. It can, can really get to our, our waterways much faster and forget the, forget the fact about impermeable surfaces, getting it much faster to the, to the waterways. But yeah

Maya Nye (19:33):

I mean, you know, I, I can give an exam in, in West Virginia, you know, for instance, there is a dam that has actually been at risk of breach for a number of years, that is they've been working on at the army Corps of engineers has been working to reinforce it. But one of the things that they say is that we're really not ready for really adverse weather events. And it is upstream of the entire chemical valley, which is multiple chemical plants down the river. And so if that they were to breach, you know, it would affect sort of like all of these facilities, mass flu at once, you know, so we hope that EPH takes those kinds of things into consideration as they move forward with this.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (20:13):

So you know, we've made this a priority and we're urging folks to submit comments to the EPA and support of the rule. What, why would anyone be opposed to the rule?

Maya Nye (20:25):

Sean, do you wanna go first on that one?

Sean Jackson (20:29):

Yeah. Well, the, the kinds of actors that would be opposed to the role are the people that are going to have to have a bunch of work ahead of them work that they should have done a long time ago, but now they have to, and so you're going to see some facilities try to say that this is already protected. This needs to have that, you know, we're already doing a good job. And I think there's a pretty strong track record that no they're not, and that we need to do better. So therefore I think it's probably going to be mostly industry pushback. I think that if you were to pull this, the majority of people would've already thought they were protected and would be shocked to hear that they're not I, I highly doubt that that well, Joe, the plumber <laugh> to, to do a flashback would, would be against such a common sense regulation.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (21:45):

So we have been talking a lot about climate change, storm events. So what, what kind of storm events are likely to cause spills just how bad can a spill be and how will this spill management plans prepare us for the worst kinds of spills.

Maya Nye (22:04):

So, you know, it's not necessarily storms that cause these events, right. So I just want to preface it with that. <Laugh> and, and what actually causes these events is lack of prevention of, of, and lack of, of yeah, lack of prevention of these kinds of disasters. But you know, I think we've talked about a number of the storms, you know, a lot of climate related storms tornadoes, hurricanes flooding, you know, in West Virginia, it was a freeze haw event. It was a normal winner. Well, I, I mean, as normal is now, right, but, but we always have, you know, sometimes it freezes and then it get, and then it warms up. And because there were no tank integrity requirements for that particular tank, the chemical that was stored in it was the wrong kind of tank. And that free saw event was enough to crack a hole open and, and let the, let the chemical spill into the, excuse me, leak into the <laugh> the drinking water supply. So any, any kinds of storms,

Sean Jackson (23:11):

Yeah. It can run the gambit of, of any kind of natural disaster or common storm that you can think about your average thunderstorm that just rolls through on a summer evening, you know, can be a little violent, could cause something like this. But how bad can it get pretty bad? It, it you know, one of these chemicals gets into a drinking water intake in one of these large systems, and you could have thousands upon thousands of people affected and not just affected in a sense that their water system shuts down in west Virginia's case, we, we had, it was just a very bad smell and it basically made it impossible to use the water system. But if you had one of these chemicals that, you know, kills you <laugh>, frankly, it it's a disaster, it's a, you know, biblical level disaster. It, it can, it can be extremely bad. And we're just thankful that nothing like that has occurred to the extent that I just described yet. But with this in place, we can hopefully alleviate the potential for something like that.

Maya Nye (24:30):

Yeah. I would, I would say that it, you know, a chemical that has a very low O threshold that you can't smell yes. That may have the potential to immediately cause you to kill over. Right. But there are chemicals that will even with, you know, a small exposure over time compound into things like cancers and, and, and other things. So, you know, those are long term, you know, long range disasters that, you know, we ha we don't, we don't have account. I think Sean was saying this earlier. Like, we, we don't know the magnitude of that because we haven't been assessing for it. Right. And yeah. And I will just say that the chemical that leaked in West Virginia, I think I mentioned this earlier, still wouldn't be covered under this rule because it's not considered a hazardous substance. It's one of a myriad of chemicals that was that was allowed in commerce to move in commerce without having without really knowing what the human health toxicity was. So, yeah, we, we essentially were the Guinea pigs for that.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (25:32):

It's very scary. Yeah, it, you know, I, when, when you hear about like any kind of chemical spills, you know, like PFAS spilling into the Farmington river in Connecticut and different, different spills across the country, it it's just terrifying. So I feel like it's so important to support this EPA rule. Is there anything you want to add? We like to end our podcast with a call to action. We are clean order action after all. So we do like to end the podcast letting listeners know how they can make an impact by speaking out, making your voices heard. So is there anything that you want to let our listers know that they could do right now to help with the EPA role proposal?

Sean Jackson (26:17):

Well, I'll say one thing that we have right now clean water action is collecting comments. This EPA proposal is not finalized yet, and we want it to be hopefully with some of our suggestions, but at the end of the day, we want it finalized. And so we're collecting comments on our website, clean water action.org. You can just see the link right there on the front page asking you to have your voice heard. And when you do that, it, when we have a big pile of people that come in and say, we care about this, it's really hard for the government to ignore it. And don't hesitate to do that. It takes you 30 seconds and it helps a lot.

Maya Nye (27:04):

I'll, I'll echo everything that Sean just said, you know, <laugh>, I mean, we need people, we need people to decide. We need, we need people's voices to be heard to get the strongest rule possible. There was one more thing that I did want add that that wasn't necessarily a call, not necessarily a call to action, but just to that, your listeners might be interested in, in recognizing that these substances are in large part derived from fossil fuels, if not entirely. Right. So not only do they pose a hazard to water at this phase in their life, right. And stored in these above ground storage tanks and environmental justice communities that are vulnerable to climate disaster. Right. So not just there, but they're part of a, a, a system of water contamination, right. From the very beginning from fossil fuel extraction, through refining, through manufacturing, through disposal. So I just wanted to share that as something to think about, you know, this is only one thought in that whole, that whole chain where water is contaminated.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (28:06):

Thank you both for being here, thanks for your dedication over the years, to protecting our water health and communities from harmful chemicals. Is there anything else you want to add before we end this show that we didn't talk about?

Sean Jackson (28:20):

No, thank you very much, Jenny.

Maya Nye (28:23):

Yeah. Thanks for having me very much.

Jenny Vickers Chyb (28:25):

Thank you. And like Sean said, you know, just visit our website if you want to make your voice heard and submit your comment to the EPA before the deadline, which is July 26. So we have a little bit of time left for you to submit your comment. Thank you both so much for being here. I really appreciate it. And thank you to all of our listeners for joining us to learn more about our work visit, clean water.org. Clean water action is celebrating our 50th birthday this year. It's also the 50th anniversary of the clean water act. So getting these regulations passed is critical. We encourage you to become a member of the organization to help us continue this work for another 50 years. If you'd like to support Clean Water Action, visit our website and click on donate as a nonprofit organization, your donations keep our engines running and allow us to continue to fight for healthier communities for all. Be sure to subscribe to Clean Water Action’s, podcast We all live downstream available on Spotify, iTunes, Google play, and all your favorite podcasting apps. Bye everyone.