Toxic flooding vulnerability assessment indicators for petrochemical sites and communities in the Galveston Bay area
Funded By:
National Academies of Sciences Gulf Research Program
Funding Cycle:
Healthy Ecosystems 4
Research Group:
Development of Gulf Coast Resiliency Management Plan Using Sentinel Species and Natural Infrastructure
Gioia Kennedy
Environmental Defense Fund
gkennedy@edf.org
flooding, storm surge, socio-economic impact, flood impacts, flood elevation, petrochemical risk, environmental impacts, community, social, economic, community resilience, baseline health, environmental equity, chemical transport, petrochemical facility
Abstract:
This dataset contains more than 100 indicators and vulnerability scores relating to hazards and burdens from petrochemical facilities, flooding and chemical transport, ecosystem conditions, baseline health, and socioeconomic conditions used to help understand and map toxic flooding vulnerabilities in the Houston Galveston Bay region. Indicator data were used to develop vulnerability scores which represent overall vulnerability from the combination of indicators along with insights into the key indicators driving that vulnerability. Two sets of vulnerability scores were developed: one for ranking individual petrochemical facility sites, and one for identifying vulnerable areas of communities throughout the study area. Our approach advances flood vulnerability research with novel indicators that combine flood and chemical hazards and that sum individual facility vulnerabilities for their combined impact on a given community. We do this using a coupled modeling system that physically constrains the connection between facility sources and impacted communities. These resources are for planners, engineers, policy makers and concerned members of the Gulf Coast to understand the vulnerabilities to toxic flooding present at the facility and community level and assist with prioritizing locations for nature-based solutions that mitigate risk.
Suggested Citation:
Weihsueh A. Chiu, Lauren Padilla, Cloelle Danforth, James M. Kaihatu, Alex Adame. Toxic flooding vulnerability assessment indicators for petrochemical sites and communities in the Galveston Bay area. Distributed by: GRIIDC, Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi. doi:10.7266/qsgpy938
Purpose:
These data contain an assessment of over 100 indicators of petrochemical facility, environmental, health, social and economic hazards and burdens in the Galveston Bay region which were used to create a scoring system and map that rank and display the overall vulnerability from the combination of indicators along with insights into the key indicators driving that vulnerability. The vulnerability map can be found at https://createnbs.org/toxic-flooding/vulnerability-map/ These resources are for planners, engineers, policy makers and concerned members of the Gulf Coast to understand the vulnerabilities to toxic flooding present at the facility and community level and assist with prioritizing locations for nature based solutions that mitigate risk.
Data Parameters and Units:
Overall Vulnerability (score), Ecosystem Vulnerability (score), Land Use Vulnerability (score), Ecosystem Services Vulnerability (score), Tree canopy cover (percent of land covered), Parks and greenspace (national percentile ranking), Impermeable surfaces (% of developed imperviousness), Relative risk (Index 1-5), Conservation priority (Index 1-5), Potential service (Index 1-5), Realized service (Index 1-5), Flood & Chemical Vulnerability (score), Chemical Transport Vulnerability (score), Facility Impacts Vulnerability (score), Flood Severity Vulnerability (score), Average chemical potential in streams - highly mobile chemicals (relative concentration), Peak chemical potential in streams - highly mobile chemicals (relative concentration), Average chemical potential in sediment - highly mobile chemicals (relative concentration), Peak chemical potential in sediment - highly mobile chemicals (relative concentration), Average chemical potential in streams - moderately mobile chemicals (relative concentration), Peak chemical potential in streams - moderately mobile chemicals (relative concentration), Average chemical potential in sediment - moderately mobile chemicals (relative concentration), Peak chemical potential in sediment - moderately mobile chemicals (relative concentration), Average chemical potential in streams - low mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Peak chemical potential in streams - low mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Average chemical potential in sediment - low mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Peak chemical potential in sediment - low mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Toxicity and load-limit weighted modeled chemical in water from NPDES facilities (weighted concentration), Toxicity and load-limit weighted modeled chemical in suspended sediment from NPDES facilities (weighted concentration), Combined facility impact on chemical in water (stormwater only) (weighted concentration), Combined facility impact on chemical in suspended sediment (stormwater only) (weighted concentration), Floodplain category (score), Maximum modeled flood depth, 2015 (meters), Maximum modeled flood depth, 2017 (meters), Maximum modeled flood depth, future climate (meters), Maximum modeled flood duration, 2015 (days), Maximum modeled flood duration, 2017 (days), Maximum modeled flood duration, future climate (days), Baseline Health Vulnerability (score), Access to Care Vulnerability (score), Health Outcomes Vulnerability (score), Life Expectancy Vulnerability (score), Lack of health insurance (% of Adults aged 18-64), Medically underserved areas (unitless), Cancer (% of adult population (excluding skin cancer)), Adult asthma (% of adult population), Coronary heart disease (% of adult population), COPD (% of adult population), Stroke (% of adult population), Life expectancy (years), Social and Economic Vulnerability (score), Housing and Transportation Vulnerability (score), Vulnerable Populations Vulnerability (score), Economic Vulnerability (score), Crowding (national percentile ranking as decimal), Group quarters (national percentile ranking as decimal), Mobile homes (national percentile ranking as decimal), Multi-unit structures (national percentile ranking as decimal), Households with no vehicle (national percentile ranking as decimal), Housing foreclosure risk (fraction of housing loans), Housing affordability (renters) (number of houses per census tract), Housing affordability (owners) (number of houses per census tract), Old housing stock (built between 1940-1969) (% of housing), Availability of flood insurance (fraction of eligible properties), Population aged 17 or younger (national percentile ranking as decimal), Population aged 65 or older (national percentile ranking as decimal), Civilian with a disability (national percentile ranking as decimal), Single-parent households (national percentile ranking as decimal), Minority (national percentile ranking as decimal), Speaks english less than well (national percentile ranking as decimal), Redlining (index 1 to 5), Poverty (national percentile ranking as decimal), Income (inverse national percentile ranking as decimal), No high school diploma (national percentile ranking as decimal), Unemployment (national percentile ranking as decimal), Households without internet access (fraction of households), Modified Retail Food Environment Index (mRFEI) (score), Facility Overall Vulnerability (score), Facility Flood Vulnerability (score), Flood Plain Category Vulnerability (score), Flood Depth Vulnerability (score), Flood Duration Vulnerability (score), Floodplain category (score), Mean aggregation of maximum modeled flood depth across the facility, 2015 (meters), Max aggregation of maximum modeled flood depth across the facility, 2015 (meters), Mean aggregation of maximum modeled flood depth across the facility, 2017 (meters), Max aggregation of maximum modeled flood depth across the facility, 2017 (meters), Mean aggregation of maximum modeled flood depth across the facility, future climate (meters), Max aggregation of maximum modeled flood depth across the facility, future climate (meters), Mean aggregation of maximum modeled flood duration across the facility, 2015 (days), Max aggregation of maximum modeled flood duration across the facility, 2015 (days), Mean aggregation of maximum modeled flood duration across the facility, 2017 (days), Max aggregation of maximum modeled flood duration across the facility, 2017 (days), Mean aggregation of maximum modeled flood duration across the facility, future climate (days), Max aggregation of maximum modeled flood duration across the facility, future climate (days), Facility Chemical Transport Vulnerability (score), Transport Amount Vulnerability (score), Transport Concentration Vulnerability (score), Average stormwater yield from petrochemical sites (mm/day), Annual maximum stormwater yield from petrochemical sites (mm/day), Average sediment yield from petrochemical sites (metric ton/ha per day), Annual maximum sediment yield from petrochemical sites (metric ton/ha per day), Chemical concentration from local facilities - high mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Chemical concentration from local facilities - moderate mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Chemical concentration from local facilities - low mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Chemical concentration in suspended sediment from local facilities - high mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Chemical concentration in suspended sediment from local facilities - moderate mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Chemical concentration in suspended sediment from local facilities - low mobility chemicals (relative concentration), Facility Hazard Vulnerability (score), Accident Potential Vulnerability (score), Chemical Hazards Vulnerability (score), Regulatory Compliance Vulnerability (score), RMP number of processes (count), RMP potential offsite consequence, flammable (lb), RMP potential offsite consequence, toxic (lb), RMP potential offsite consequence, total (lb), RMP accident amount, flammable (lb), RMP accident amount, toxic (lb), RMP accident amount, total (lb), RMP evacuation/shelter in place incidents (count), RMP property damage ($USD), SEMS number of chemicals present (number reported), SEMS number of carcinogenic chemicals present (number reported), NPDES carcinogen emissions hazard (emitted x unit toxicity value), NPDES non-carcinogen emissions hazard (emitted x unit toxicity value), NEI carcinogen emissions hazard (emitted x unit toxicity value), NEI non-carcinogen emissions hazard (emitted x unit toxicity value), RSEI carcinogen emissions hazard (emitted x unit toxicity value), RSEI non-carcinogen emissions hazard (emitted x unit toxicity value), Number of informal enforcement actions taken against the facility (count), Number of formal enforcement actions taken against the facility (count), The total dollar amount of either assessed or final penalties resulting from formal enforcement actions. ($USD), The number of either assessed or final penalties resulting from formal enforcement actions. (count), Quarters with noncompliance (count of quarters), Regulations with significant noncompliance (count), Total number of violations/noncompliance in 3 yr history weighted by severity (weighted count)
Methods:
Our team analyzed more than 100 indicators of petrochemical facility, environmental, health, social and economic hazards and burdens to understand and map toxic flooding vulnerabilities in the Galveston Bay region on a facility level and on a community level. Facilities are defined as petrochemical sites associated with downstream oil and gas industry. This included refineries, petroleum terminals, warehousing and storage and chemical manufacturing of paint, pesticides, and plastics, to name a few of the many products. We identified these facilities using their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes (324, 325, 326, 424710 and 493190). Community level data are on a grid across the Galveston Bay region where each grid cell has a unique ID ("cell_id") that is used to assign the indicator data to the grid using the provided shapefile (polygon_with_cell_id). These indicators are sourced from our modelling results, from a myriad of pre-existing datasets, and from scores assigned by Toxicological Prioritization Index (ToxPi) which are classified by domains at both the community and facility level. At the facility level, the measures of vulnerability correspond to three main domains: Flooding vulnerability – Indicators in this domain relate to how severe flooding might be, including comparison with floodplains from FEMA or Harvey, and results based on computer modeling. Chemical transport – Indicators in this domain relate to the potential for chemicals from the facility to be transported off-site due to flooding, and are based on results from computer modeling. Facility hazards – Indicators in this domain relate to the inherent vulnerability of the facility due to potential for hazardous accidents, the types of chemicals typically present or released, and the degree to which the facility has complied with safety regulations in the past. At the community level, the measures of vulnerability correspond to four main domains: Ecosystem – Indicators in this domain relate to how the land is used (e.g., parks and greenspace vs. pavement) and the types of ecological services it can provide. Flooding and chemical transport – Indicators in this domain relate to how severe flooding might be, the potential for chemicals in general to move into the area, and the extent to which chemicals from facilities specifically may move into the area. Baseline health – Indicators in this domain relate to the existing conditions related to diseases, access to health care, and life expectancy, and with worse outcomes indicating poorer resilience. Social and economic – Indicators in this domain relate to the existing conditions related to quality of housing and transportation, vulnerable populations, and economic circumstances, with worse outcomes indicating poorer resilience. Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) provided estimates of chemical transport in stormwater, eroded soil, and rivers, accounting for drainage from the entire Galveston Bay watershed, as boundary conditions and inputs into the Delft3D coastal model used to estimate flooding. At the facility level, the model provided information on flood and chemical transport characteristics including flood depth and duration based on historic and future weather conditions and potential chemical amount and concentration transported. At the community level, model results were incorporated into indicators for chemical transport potential, flood severity, and facility impacts. The model provided a physical basis for determining potential transport pathways between impacted communities and the combined contamination from multiple facilities. We weighted facility vulnerability scores by the model estimates of the potential contaminant transport to create indicators for combined facility impacts. More information about the individual indicators, including data sources, can be found in the "indicator_methodology_2024May31.pdf" document.
Provenance and Historical References:
Indicators in this dataset which were created with historical data are acknowledged and sourced in the "indicator_methodology_2024May31.pdf" document.