Safety and security in the chemical industry are high on the government's list of priorities, as shown by two Bush Administration initiatives.

In the first, more decisive action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently required the chemical industry to conduct more research on a potentially dangerous chemical called perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.

In the second action, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has drafted a mandatory chemical plant security bill that if passed, will put an end to a year and a half of debate on how to address the vulnerability of U.S. chemical plants. The Bush Administration has yet to introduce the bill, but congressional and Administration sources say that it will release it soon.

EPA Forces Companies to Conduct More Research

The EPA's mandate directly addresses the concerns expressed by regulators and scientists about the possible health and environmental effects of perfluorinated acids—a prominent group of industrial chemicals to which PFOA belongs.

Such acids have been found extensively in the environment and in virtually all Americans. No human health effects have been observed, but EPA officials were disturbed by recent toxicological data in animals, which showed that high doses of some acids could be toxic.

Another worrisome fact was that perfluorinated acids do not degrade—they display even more persistence than DDT or PCB's, which disintegrate over decades. In fact, scientists have not been able to calculate how fast perfluorinated acids break down. "We don't know if it does degrade," says Dr. Scott A. Mabury, a researcher at the University of Toronto who has studied the chemicals.

Surprisingly, perfluorinated acids appear to be widespread—detected in food samples, in water in some areas of the country, in almost all human blood samples that have undergone testing, and even in the Arctic. "It's nonvolatile. It's not soluble. How does it get to these remote locations?" asks John Giesy, a researcher at Michigan State who has conducted research on the chemicals. Clearly, the fact that such acids have been part of many brand-name chemicals since World War II does not answer Giesy's question. "Polar bears and eagles certainly don't buy our products," says Dr. Larry Zoebel, medical director at 3M.

Scientists point out that the characteristics that make these acids useful to industry—chemical stability and resistance to high temperatures—may potentially impact the environment. Water- and oil-repellant and able to withstand chemical stress, such chemicals are also used to make Teflon and Gore-Tex, and they are discharged from Stainmaster, Teflon and the initial Scotchgard formulation as breakdown products. Moreover, they are used in the manufacture of polymers for aircraft and electronics.

"Though we have concerns, there is a lot of uncertainty," says Stephen L. Johnson, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. "Given the uncertainty, additional scientific information is needed to determine if regulatory actions are necessary."

Research will be focused on answering questions such as where these acids are coming from, how they move about, how they enter the human body and how they affect our health in the long run.

Administration Set to Release Security Bill

The vulnerability of chemical plants has also been a major cause for concern—particularly after the recent release of a report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, in which the government's lack of action was criticized. The March report asserted, "Chemical facilities may be attractive targets for terrorists intent on causing economic harm and loss of life." And U.S. chemical plants are extremely vulnerable to such attacks, say top-ranking Administration officials.

Fears also mounted after media reports cited EPA and other data indicating that millions of people could be killed or injured in the event of a terrorist attack or major accident at a chemical plant. In fact, over 100 chemical facilities throughout the country are each capable of endangering millions of individuals with hazardous concentrations of toxic gas, according to industry documents submitted to the EPA.

Currently, chemical companies are not legally obligated to take precautions to deter an attack or other untoward event. Also, there is no law explicitly granting federal officials the power to inspect plants or order security measures. "We can't get in the door," says EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. "We don't have the legal authority to look at their vulnerability."

And voluntary self-assessment appears to be inadequate. Since 9/11, only 7% of U.S. facilities have voluntarily evaluated their vulnerabilities and adopted safeguards such as fences, barriers and video cameras. "To date, no one has comprehensively assessed the security of chemical facilities," the GAO report says. "Despite the industry's voluntary efforts, the extent of security preparedness at U.S. chemical facilities is unknown."

Despite the clamor for legislation mandating security measures, Congress and the Bush Administration have not been able to come to an agreement. But that indecision may come to an end if a new bill is able to move ahead. The Administration is reportedly set to release a mandatory chemical plant security bill, which according to a Senate Environment & Public Works Committee aide, was written by security experts in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

According to the aide, the new bill embraces the basic concept of the bill introduced more than a year ago by Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.), but differs in two significant ways. First, the bill would grant DHS, not EPA, enforcement powers, and second, it would not order companies to decrease use or on-site storage of toxic chemicals. This means that it will not urge firms to switch to intrinsically safer chemical manufacturing processes.

Those two aspects of Corzine's bill had drawn the most resistance from the chemical industry. Thus, the Administration bill, which incorporates these two changes, is expected to obtain the endorsement of the chemical industry.

The new bill seems to closely follow the American Chemistry Council's voluntary program, making it mandatory for probably some 15,000 U.S. companies that manage substantial amounts of dangerous chemicals. Under the Administration bill, such companies would have to assess their own vulnerabilities, adopt counterterrorism measures and verify their compliance. The firms deemed most susceptible would be forced to take the necessary precautions first.

Administration officials say that the bill would probably be released "by the end of the month." Meanwhile, Corzine and supporters vow to continue fighting for adoption of his approach.

Sources: Bush Security Bill Drafted
Jeff Johnson
Chemical & Engineering News, April 14, 2003
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8115/8115notw1.html

Chemical Plants Said to Pose Risk
Marla Cone
L.A. Times, April 17, 2003
http://www.latimes.com/news/yahoo/la-me-chemplants17apr17,0,2605464.story?coll=la%2Dnewsaol%2Dheadlines

E.P.A. Orders Companies to Examine Effects of Chemicals
Jennifer 8. Lee
The New York Times, April 15, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/