As seas rise, so do the risks from toxic sites – The Invading Sea

Report on Climate-Induced Hazardous Site Flooding and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

1.0 Introduction and Executive Summary

1.1 Overview

This report analyzes the escalating risks posed by sea-level rise to hazardous industrial sites along United States coastlines, with a specific focus on Richmond, California. It highlights the disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations, thereby directly challenging the achievement of several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Research published in Nature Communications indicates that thousands of hazardous facilities are at risk of flooding, which could release toxic substances into surrounding communities. This situation underscores a critical intersection of climate change, environmental justice, and public health.

1.2 Key Findings

1. Climate change-induced sea-level rise is projected to increase the flood risk for approximately 5,500 hazardous sites in the U.S. by 2100.
2. Low-income communities and communities of color are disproportionately situated near these at-risk sites, exacerbating existing inequalities and health disparities.
3. Rising groundwater, a consequence of sea-level rise, poses a significant threat of mobilizing contaminants from previously capped toxic waste sites, creating new pathways for exposure.
4. Institutional failures, including the cancellation of federal grants for resilience projects, undermine local efforts to mitigate these climate-related threats and achieve environmental justice.

1.3 Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The issues identified in Richmond, California, directly impact the following SDGs:

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: Threatened by exposure to toxic chemicals from industrial pollution and potential floodwaters.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: At risk from contamination of groundwater and surface water by hazardous waste and overwhelmed sewage systems.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: Undermined by the disproportionate burden of environmental risk placed on marginalized communities due to historical and systemic discrimination.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: Challenged by the lack of resilient infrastructure and the unsafe proximity of residential areas to industrial hazards.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: Highlights the urgent need for both emissions reduction and robust adaptation strategies to address the locked-in impacts of climate change.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: Calls into question the effectiveness and equity of institutional responses to environmental threats.

2.0 Climate Action and Environmental Risk Analysis (SDG 13)

2.1 Projected Impacts of Sea-Level Rise

Failure to take decisive climate action (SDG 13) has resulted in “locked-in” sea-level rise, creating predictable future hazards. Key projections include:

• Nearly 3,800 hazardous sites in the U.S. are likely to experience a 1-in-100-year flood event by 2050.
• This number increases to 5,500 sites by 2100 under current emissions trajectories.
• The majority of these at-risk facilities are concentrated in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York, and Massachusetts.

2.2 Vulnerability of Hazardous Facilities

The types of facilities posing a risk to communities and the environment include:

1. Oil and gas wells
2. Industrial facilities tracked by the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory
3. Sewage treatment plants
4. Fossil fuel ports and terminals
5. Superfund and other cleanup sites

2.3 Subsurface Threats: Rising Groundwater

Beyond surface flooding, a critical threat to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) comes from below ground. Research indicates that as sea levels rise, saline water intrudes inland and pushes fresh groundwater upward. This process can:

• Inundate buried toxic materials at capped cleanup sites, mobilizing contaminants like volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
• Transport mobilized toxins into aging and damaged sewer systems.
• Create pathways for harmful chemical vapors to enter homes and buildings through plumbing and foundation cracks.

3.0 Socio-Economic and Health Dimensions

3.1 Environmental Injustice and Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10)

The distribution of at-risk sites is not equitable, reflecting a legacy of discriminatory housing and zoning policies that directly contravenes the goals of SDG 10. Analysis reveals:

• Overburdened communities are 50% more likely to live within one kilometer of a hazardous site at risk of flooding by 2100.
• Populations with a higher likelihood of living near an at-risk site include Hispanic residents, single-parent households, renters, and those in poverty.
• In Richmond, at-risk industrial sites are concentrated around historically Black and Latino neighborhoods such as the Iron Triangle and North Richmond, a direct result of “state-sponsored segregation.”

3.2 Public Health and Well-being (SDG 3)

The proximity to industrial pollution has already created significant public health challenges, which will be exacerbated by climate-induced flooding. This presents a severe obstacle to achieving SDG 3.

• Existing Conditions: Richmond residents suffer from elevated rates of asthma (25% vs. 13% statewide), with emergency department visits for asthma in some neighborhoods ranking in the 99th percentile for California.
• Future Risks: Exposure to toxic floodwaters containing raw sewage, industrial chemicals, and hydrocarbons is linked to severe long-term health conditions, including cancer, heart problems, and respiratory illnesses.

4.0 Urban Resilience and Institutional Accountability

4.1 Challenges to Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG 11)

The urban landscape of Richmond exemplifies the challenges to creating safe, resilient, and sustainable communities. Decades of industrial dominance and disinvestment have left the city vulnerable.

• Hazardous sites, including chemical plants and the Chevron refinery, are located near schools and residential areas.
• Aging infrastructure, particularly sewer pipes, is not equipped to handle the dual threat of extreme weather and rising groundwater, potentially turning into conduits for toxic contamination.
• Community-led initiatives, such as the Urban Tilth farm, aim to build local resilience but face overwhelming environmental threats from adjacent hazardous facilities.

4.2 Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG 16)

The pursuit of environmental justice in Richmond highlights the critical role and, at times, the failure of institutions. Achieving SDG 16 requires accountable governance that protects all citizens.

• Community activism, catalyzed by events like the 2012 Chevron refinery fire, has become a primary driver for accountability.
• Local government has negotiated financial settlements with polluters, such as a $500 million agreement with Chevron, to fund infrastructure and community investment.
• However, federal support has proven unreliable. The Trump administration’s cancellation of a $19 million EPA Community Change Grant for the North Richmond Resilience Initiative represents a significant setback, undermining efforts to build adaptive capacity in a community that has borne the burden of pollution for a century.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article extensively discusses the negative health impacts on the residents of Richmond, California, due to industrial pollution. It mentions specific health conditions like asthma, chest pain, headaches, heart problems, cancer, and respiratory issues linked to refinery explosions and chronic exposure to toxic chemicals.
2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • The article highlights the threat of water contamination. It discusses how rising sea levels and flooding can release toxic substances from hazardous sites, including untreated sewage and industrial chemicals, into floodwaters and groundwater, posing a significant risk to public health and the environment.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • A central theme is environmental injustice. The article emphasizes that low-income communities and communities of color (specifically Black and Latino neighborhoods) are disproportionately affected by pollution and the risks of flooding from hazardous sites. This is attributed to a “legacy of state-sponsored racism” and discriminatory housing policies.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article focuses on the urban environment of Richmond, detailing the dangers posed by hazardous waste sites, industrial facilities, and poor infrastructure (like old sewer pipes) within the community. It addresses the city’s vulnerability to climate-related disasters and the need for resilient planning and infrastructure investment.
5. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The core issue discussed is the impact of climate change, specifically sea-level rise and more intense storms (“atmospheric rivers”), which exacerbate the risks of flooding. The article links the burning of fossil fuels to these climate effects and discusses the need for mitigation (curbing emissions) and adaptation (resilience planning).
6. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article touches on issues of governance, community activism, and institutional response. It describes the efforts of local activists to protest polluting industries, the role of the city council in negotiating with corporations, and the failure of federal institutions to support community resilience, as seen in the cancellation of an EPA grant.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
   • The article directly relates to this target by detailing the health crises in Richmond. The 2012 Chevron refinery explosion forced “15,000 residents to seek medical care,” and chronic exposure to industrial emissions has led to high rates of asthma and other long-term health conditions like cancer, which are explicitly linked to “hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution.”
2. Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally.
   • The threat of “toxic floodwaters” releasing “petroleum and untreated sewage” is a primary concern. The article describes how historic chemical plants “dumped toxic waste on marshlands” and how rising groundwater could mobilize contaminants from capped hazardous sites, directly threatening water quality in the community.
3. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.
   • The article illustrates a profound lack of inclusion and equality. It states that “low-income neighborhoods and communities of color face a disproportionate share of the risk” and that discriminatory housing policies historically forced “Black and brown folks” to live near heavy industry. The cancellation of a grant intended to help the predominantly non-white community of North Richmond further highlights the systemic barriers to achieving environmental justice and inclusion.
4. Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations.
   • The article analyzes the future threat of flooding—a water-related disaster—on hazardous sites. The study cited identifies thousands of facilities at risk, with the article noting that “overburdened communities like Richmond” are more likely to be affected. This directly aligns with the target’s focus on reducing the impact of disasters on vulnerable populations.
5. Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
   • Richmond is presented as a city with a severe adverse environmental impact on its residents. The article cites the Chevron refinery’s release of “812,000 pounds of toxic chemicals, heavy metals and carcinogens” in a single year and the presence of numerous “Superfund and cleanup sites,” demonstrating a critical need for improved air quality and waste management.
6. Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.
   • The entire narrative is framed around the need to build resilience to climate change impacts like sea-level rise and extreme storms. The article discusses community efforts to plan for these threats, such as the North Richmond Resilience Initiative, which was designed to help the community prepare for “climate-change-fueled disasters” before its funding was canceled.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for Target 3.9 (Health Impacts from Pollution):
   • Morbidity rates from pollution: The article provides specific data points: “25% of Richmond residents have asthma, compared to 13% of California residents.”
   • Rate of emergency medical care sought after industrial accidents: “15,000 residents” sought medical care after the 2012 refinery explosion.
   • Geographic health disparities: “Asthma emergency department visits in the Iron Triangle are higher than 99% of California census tracts.”
2. Indicators for Target 11.6 (Urban Environmental Impact):
   • Amount of toxic chemicals released by industrial facilities: The Chevron refinery released “812,000 pounds of toxic chemicals, heavy metals and carcinogens” in one year.
   • Number of hazardous waste sites: The article mentions “nearly two dozen hazardous sites likely to flood in her hometown,” including Superfund sites.
3. Indicators for Targets 11.5 & 13.1 (Vulnerability to Climate Disasters):
   • Number of hazardous facilities at risk from climate change: The cited study identifies “5,500 [U.S. facilities] that are likely to experience a 1-in-100-year flood event… by 2100” and “Nearly 3,800 sites are likely to flood by 2050.”
   • Proportion of vulnerable populations living near at-risk sites: “Overburdened communities… are 50% more likely to live within a kilometer (0.6 miles) of a hazardous site at risk of flooding by century’s end.”
4. Indicators for Target 10.2 (Inequality and Disproportionate Risk):
   • Demographics of high-risk areas: In North Richmond, “96% of residents are people of color.”
   • Increased likelihood of exposure for specific groups: “Hispanic residents, single parents, nonvoters, renters, people over 65 and those in poverty… are up to 41% more likely to live near an at-risk site.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theinvadingsea.com