industry impacts
2.3 CHRONIC POLLUTION IMPACTS
2.3.4 Toyama Prefecture, Japan
Prolonged environmental exposure to cadmium in the Toyama Prefecture in Japan resulted in a severe outbreak of itai-itai disease, which means literally ‘it hurts’. First reported in 1955, it occurred in the population in an area downstream from a mine on the Juntsu River. The condition was almost entirely confined to elderly women who had borne several children, and was characterised by severe bone pain, bone softening, fractures, waddling gait and renal impairment. The river water that was used to irrigate crops was frequently contaminated by outpourings from the mine, which contained zinc, lead and cadmium. Levels of cadmium in locally harvested rice were shown to be about 10 times higher than normal, leading to the conclusion that cadmium exposure was responsible for the disease. However, calcium and vitamin D deficiencies in the local population were almost certainly important contributory factors (Harrison, 2001). Local wildlife is likely to have also suffered the consequences of chronic metal poisoning from exposure to the untreated mine effluent.
2.4 DISCUSSION
When human health risks are involved, there are two powerful driving forces at play: justifiable public concerns in the face of contamination by known toxicants, and the industrialists’ fear of multi-million-dollar litigation for health impacts on communities. Investigations and remedial actions are easier when human health is not the primary concern – for example where impacts are on aquatic life in receiving waters. Invertebrates don’t sue for compensation, and no-one supposes sub-lethal effects observed in fish after a chemical spill are more likely to be psychosomatic. For human populations – where people’s health is arguably the most important concern regarding environmental exposures – there is often a real risk of literally adding insult to injury in pursuit of an almost impossibly high level of proof of environmental damage and liability.
Several of the examples in this paper demonstrate the problems of investigating pollution incidents in situ: they are not scientific research projects with proper controls, or carefully run trials dosing the suspected chemicals of concern, isolating other possible variables and influences. For example, it is obviously neither practical nor ethical to conduct blind trials using doses of selected chemicals on one group of volunteers whilst given identical looking substances to a control group, neither group knowing what they’ve been given – and running such trials for months or years to simulate chronic exposure. An ongoing investigation is the opposite of a planned study and there are some important ‘unknowns’: Is it a one-off sudden leak of something, or a hitherto undetected chronic problem? Is it actually a pollution problem, or something else? Sometimes it is by no means clear which are the chemicals to be investigated in an effluent ‘brew’ of product, intermediates, process side reactants,
Accidents and pollution: industry impacts 33 raw materials and the spectrum of forms in between. The difficulty of selecting the right chemical to study is, however, just one aspect. What about synergistic effects of mixtures? The latter would add greatly to the complexity and costs of a thorough scientific trial (and, it must be stressed, a field investigation into an ongoing and varying environmental pollution episode is not a scientific trial evaluating health impacts on populations or even physical dispersion/degradation and uptake risks).
In the 1990s, the then UK Environment Department (DETR) commissioned an important report into methods to be adopted in the event of a chemical accident (AEA Technology Environment, 1999). The objective was to ensure that appropriate environmental samples and monitoring of environmental impacts is planned for and undertaken in the event of a chemical pollution incident. Such information would be very useful in analysing the consequences of – and mitigating the effects of – environmental degradation following such an event. It is not known how such guidance has been adopted or is followed, but to properly understand the environmental impacts of a major pollution incident this is absolutely essential.
Several of the cases reported here involved considerable expenditure related to clean-up costs and subsequent legal settlements – often far exceeding the cost of installing protective measures in the first place. Table 2.1 provides a summary of impacts and costs of some of the incidents described here.
Several of the accounts of major accidents or incidents outlined above reported psychological effects on local communities – including residents nearby, workers and officials. Impacts on public and business confidence do not receive as much attention as chemical contamination, but perhaps deserve more consideration in designing and costing safety and accident prevention measures at a plant. Salzmann (1987), writing for Sandoz, highlighted the psychological impacts on residents around Basel who, although not adversely affected by the chemicals released in the fire at the Sandoz plant, were nonetheless in shock that such an event could happen at ‘their’ local factory. The loss of public confidence in the company was felt to be a major ongoing concern for the business.
Although this paper is primarily concerned with ‘acute’ major chemical incidents, two of the severe classic pollution episodes reviewed here went on for many years.
Sadly, it is very likely that in developing countries seeking to industrialise their economies, examples of equally poor environmental management, destroying resources for others and the health and viability of local communities, are still occurring. Continuous pollution is inefficient business – loss of resources for the business and destruction of resources for others in the locality.
2.5 CONCLUSIONS
Impacts of industrial accidents involving catastrophic or severe chronic pollutant releases include:
• Health impacts on those seeking to contain an incident at the site
• Health impacts on the local human population
Table 2.1 Summary of impacts and costs to industry of some of the pollution incidents. CompanyProblemContributory Cause/sSubsequent Legal Settlement Cost in $USImpact Union Carbide1,2 Bhopal plant, IndiaLeak from pesticide plant & explosionProduction continued whilst decommissioning plant and shut down safety features2
$470 million>3800 people killed2 Sandoz3,4, Rhine Incident, SwitzerlandFire in pesticide storeUnable to contain volume of fire-water; quantity of toxic materials stored on premises Fish mortalities & other ecological impacts Loss of confidence in the business Pacific Gas & Electric Co.5 Hinkley, California, USA
Storing toxic chemicals in solution in unlined vessel in permeable soils supplying groundwater
Denial of risksIn excess of $333 millionChronic exposure to Cr6 contamination in drinking water supplies Chisso Corporation6, Minamata, JapanEffluent untreated, then inadequately treated, then diverted to another waterbody Denial of a problem, perhaps initially ignorance of pollution prevention techniques
$3.4 million compensation to victims awarded in 1973 court action, rising to a total $86 m by 2004 Severe health impacts and hundreds of deaths, plus congenital impacts for decades Ruihai Logistics7, Tianjin, ChinaExplosionMix of toxic and explosive chemicals in excessive quantities
$360,669 paid by govt. to each of the families of firefighters killed
173 dead, extensive damage to property, human health risk, groundwater pollution risk References:1Goodman (2009), 2Broughton (2005), 3Salzmann (1987),4Giger (2009), 5KPCC (2012), 6Allen and Burns (2009), 7China Daily (2015b).
Accidents and pollution: industry impacts 35
• Environmental damage (e.g., polluted groundwater, contaminated ecosystems, fish mortalities)
• Destruction of resources for others, thereby adversely affecting the viability of local communities (local fisheries, potable water supplies, abstraction for other businesses downstream and hence employment risks)
• Loss of confidence in the local factory where the incident happened
• Loss of confidence/trust in the company responsible
• Loss of confidence in the industry.
Causes of major accidents vary, but include:
• Poor management
• Inadequate inspection and maintenance procedures
• Inadequate priority given to a precautionary approach to risks and human health and safety, and environmental protection, by the company responsible
• Inadequate contingency planning for emergencies, especially lack of provision for managing fires and fire-water
• Failure to understand that the cost of prevention measures is usually trivial compared to the cost of impacts when accidents or other serious pollution episodes occur
• In a few examples, ill-informed dogma in relation to environmental issues;
allowing common sense to be over-ruled by a reluctance to sanction funds for basic measures at relatively trivial cost.
Insurance policies can cover costs for restoration of property, but cannot restore human fatalities. Investment in sensible precautions and safe practices is the only appropriate insurance policy for a business with risks to people. This paper serves as a reminder why a measured precautionary approach by government, communities and especially industry is sensible and appropriate. A few of the examples here underline why a proper regulatory regime is very necessary, certainly for the good of the local populations and environment but also in many instances in the interests of sustained production at the industrial premises themselves. The disaster at Tianjin in China is a topical example; the question is, how many more such incidents will happen even though basic prevention and risk management procedures are usually neither expensive nor technically difficult?
REFERENCES
AEA Technology Environment (1999). Environmental Sampling after a Chemical Accident. Stationery Office: ISBN 0117534951, 9780117534957. 354pp.
Allen K. and Burns C. (2009). Minamata disease. Boston University, Boston. http://www.eoearth.org/
view/article/154624/
BBC (1986). 1986: Chemical spill turns Rhine red. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/
november/1/newsid_4679000/4679789.stm
Broughton E. (2005). The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 4, 6. Available from http://www.ehjournal.net/content/ 4/1/6
California EPA (2016). http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/projects/pge/index.shtml;
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb6/water_issues/projects/pge/index.shtml and http://oehha.ca.gov/
water/phg/072911Cr6PHG.html
China Daily (2015a). Tianjin detects harmful air pollutants, Beijing stays clear. 13 August 2015.
Retrieved 14 August 2015.
China Daily (2015b). Tianjin announces compensation for martyred firefighters families. Chinadaily.
com.cn. Retrieved 14 August 2015.
Fortun K. (2001). Advocacy after Bhopal. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 259.
Giger W. (2009). The Rhine red, the fish dead – the 1986 Schweizerhalle disaster, a retrospect and long-term assessment. Environment Science and Pollution Research, 16(Suppl 1), S98–S111.
Goodman S. (2009). Poisoned Water Haunts Bhopal 25 Years after Chemical Accident. http://www.
scientificamerican.com/article/groundwater-contami natioon-india- pesti cide-factory
Harada M. (1995). Minamata disease: methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 25(1), 1–24.
Harrison P. T. C. (2001). Health effects of environmental chemicals. In: Pollution Causes, Effects and Control, R. M. Harrison (ed.), 4th edn. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK, pp. 500–523.
Harrison P. T. C., Holmes P. & Humfrey C. D. N. (1997). Reproductive health in humans and wildlife:
are adverse effects trends associated with environmental chemical exposure? Science of the Total Environment, 205, 97–106.
Health and Safety Executive (2004). Accident Summary, Union Carbide India Limited, Bhopal, India:
December 3, 1984. In: Hazardous Installations Directorate. HSDA.
IEH (1995). IEH assessment on environmental oestrogens: consequences to Human Health and Wildlife (Assessment A1). In: P. T. C. Harrison, C. D. N. Humfrey, M. Litchfield, D. Peakall and L. Shuker (written and edited), MRC Institute for Environment and Health, Leicester, UK. Available at: http://www.iehconsulting.co.uk
KPCC (2012). PG&E makes $3.6 million settlement with Hinkley, its second in 20 years. http://www.
scpr.org/news/2012/03/16/31664/pge-makes-36-million-settle ment- hink ley-its-second/
Kumar S. (2004). Victims of gas leak in Bhopal seek redress on compensation. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 329(7462), 366.
Li J., Huang, K. L. and Jun, M. (2015). Mystery white foam and burns reported as rain falls at Tianjin blast site sparking fears of toxic reactions. South China Morning Post, 26 August 201, China.
Mackenzie D. (2002). Fresh evidence on Bhopal disaster. New Scientist, 19(1).
Phillips T. (2015). Chinese authorities investigate mass fish death near Tianjin explosion site.
The Guardian, 20th August 2015. Retrieved 24 August 2015.
Salzmann J. J. (1987). “Schweizerhalle” and its consequences. In: Fires Involving Pesticides – The Rhine Incident. Proceedings of a Seminar on 25/26 November 1987. British Agrochemicals Association.
The Guardian (2015). Tianjin explosion: China sets final death toll at 173, ending search for survivors.
The Guardian. Associated Press. 12 September 2015.
Varghese J. (2015). Tianjin Aftermath: ‘Chemical Rain’ leaves streets foaming, residents complain about rashes. The International Business Times, 18 August 2015. http://www.ibtimes.co.in/tianjin-aftermath-chemical-rain-leaves-streets-foaming-residents-complain-about-rashes-643377 (Retrieved 18 April 2016)
Wikipedia (2016). Minamata disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease
Wipf H. K. and Schmid J. (1983). Seveso – an environmental assessment. In: Human and Environmental Risks of Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds, R. E. Tucker, A. L. Young, A. P. Gray (eds), Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Zeng V. (2015). 3,000 Tonnes of Dangerous Chemicals were Stored at Tianjin Explosion Site, Say Police. Hong Kong Free Press, 18th August 2015.
Lee-Hyung Kim
1, Brian J. D’Arcy
2*, Marta Ibanez
3and Marla Maniquiz-Redillas
11Kongju National University
2Independent consultant
3BEAR Scotland
*Corresponding author: brian@enviroexperience.co.uk