GOVERNMENT
EPA Details Strategy To Control Hazardous Chemical Air Emissions Agency considers proposed program a viable experiment in cooperation among EPA, states, and communities; local officials are very sceptical Since the Bhopal disaster, concern over the health effects of hazardous chemicals released into the air has been epidemic. Bills to control hazardous chemical emissions have been introduced in Congress, and the Environmental Protection Agency is developing an air toxics strategy to combat the concern. The details of that strategy were the subject of a meeting this month of the State & Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials. At the meeting it became clear that although EPA has hinged much of the success of its strategy on state and local cooperation, local officials are very wary of the agency's plans. Some members of Congress, moreover, are bitter about the Administration's slowness in regulating toxic air pollutants. The inactivity following Bhopal, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D.-N.J.) told the meeting, has led to "endless litigation, increased public health problems, and a loss of confidence in the governm e n t . " He specifically attacked EPA's air toxics strategy. By placing too great a burden on state and local governments, Lautenberg said, "EPA abdicates federal responsibility in areas where federal expertise and authority matter. It does not list the chemicals that pose a threat to the public. It ignores the need of emergency response personnel and local officials for information on chemicals in their communities, and 16
October 28, 1985 C&EN
Lautenberg: toxics strategy inadequate it provides no assistance in the planning process." EPA staff members at the conference, including EPA administrator Lee M. Thomas, believe the agency's air toxics program is a viable solution to the growing concern. A major part of the plan, often ignored by critics, is the planning and training programs EPA says will help local and state governments respond to toxic emergencies. "The strategy will be an experiment in cooperation between EPA and the states and communities," Thomas said. If the experiment works, great things can be achieved, he added, but if it doesn't, the agency will try something else. Many of the criticisms Thomas heard at the meeting had to do with how state efforts would be funded under this plan. He responded that EPA already had included $3 million for state grants for air toxics work in the 1986 budget, and that Congress apparently will increase that by as much as $6 million
when it passes the appropriations bill. That action is expected soon. Many details of the EPA strategy were explained to the officials at the meeting. The plan is divided into three major sections. The first deals with the chemical emergency and preparedness program. James Makris, deputy director of EPA's hazardous response support division, Office of Emergency & Remedial Response, said that the important thing in this area is better coordination among the responsible agencies. When the air toxics strategy is proposed formally, it will include a guidance document for local and state authorities on handling emergencies. Makris said this will detail procedures for finding out from local industries if they are using chemicals on the soon-to-be-announced acute hazards list; for determining what companies are doing to protect the public from accidents; for making a local list of priority chemicals to be cautious of; and for designing contingency plans to respond to chemical releases. EPA will be giving local officials seminars and training programs for implementing the plan. As a starting point, the agency is holding a nationwide teleconference on Nov. 18. A second aspect of the strategy is regional environmental monitoring. EPA will do a detailed multimedia survey of all pollutants in metropolitan areas to determine how the populations are exposed. It will then prepare a list of the chemicals that present the greatest risk. The communities will be able to use these lists and the detailed data employed in compiling them to help in their p l a n n i n g processes. M o n i t o r i n g studies in Philadelphia and Baltimore already have been completed, and more are planned. The third part of the strategy in-
volves federal, state, and local cooperation. EPA considers it essential to enhance the capabilities of local air pollution programs and build new ones where they are needed, John R. O'Connor, director of EPA's division of strategies and air standards, told the meeting. The agency has established a computerbased clearinghouse for information on dealing with air toxics, and a referral program of technical and financial support to help control local pollution sources that do not warrant federal regulation. Whether the program coming out of EPA is what the local and state agencies want or need will be decided in the future. Virtually all states already have air toxics laws on the books and some of these are very strict. Inventories of what chemicals are manufactured or used within the states are being collected, and citizen right-to-know programs are being expanded. Some officials attending the conference believe the solution might be a combination of
better land use planning, more preparation to minimize chances of a disaster, and improved industry disclosure about problems. However, the concerns of many state officials are not focused on chemical companies at all, but on toxic air pollution from cars, trucks, landfills, industrial boilers, and publicly owned water treatment facilities. One speaker summed up his misgivings about the proposed EPA strategy with a list of worries. He's afraid, he said, that EPA's plan will be in trouble because it is voluntary. There is no backup legislation for enforcement. There is not enough money. There are too many chemicals to deal with at one time. There is not enough emphasis on accident prevention. The air toxics program strategy will be p u b l i s h e d w i t h i n three weeks, after which a public comment period begins. Only at the end of this period will it be determined if the strategy survives its critics. David Hanson, Washington
Glycine Ethyl Ester HCI ETHYL GLYCINATEHCI ETHYL AMINO ACETATE HCI H2NCH2C02C2H5 · HCI Use: Intermediate For Tranquilizers
Ausiin. Austin Chemical Company, Inc. 8410 West BrynMawr Ave , Chicago, IL 60631 (312) 399-0490, TELEX 280342
Binary chemical bomb still has problems In reports that have yet to be made public, the General Accounting Office says the Pentagon still has not worked out the technical problems that have plagued development of the binary chemical bomb known as Bigeye. GAO recommends that Congress turn down the Pentagon's fiscal 1986 request for $142 million for Bigeye procurement and production facilities. The Defense Department has declared the bomb ready for production. In a June 24 letter published in the Washington Post, Thomas J. Welch, deputy assistant to the Secretary of Defense for chemical matters, wrote: "The Bigeye bomb recently completed its engineering and developmental phase. It passed 74 of 75 tests." He also said the pressure b u i l d u p problems that caused the bomb to explode when it shouldn't had been resolved, and that the lethality of the nerve gas formed in the tests exceeded design goals. However, in a May 21 letter to Congress, Richard L. Wagner, assistant to the Defense Secretary, reported that 216 tests of the Bigeye had been completed, and 10 were failures. Wagner made no comment on the pressure buildup problem. GAO cannot reconcile the different test figures. Of the various tests conducted, however, the chemical ones are the most important because the Bigeye is a chemical weapon. For these tests, GAO charges that the Pentagon has declared tests successful by shifting its criterion of success from agent (nerve gas) purity, to biotoxicity, to lethality. In the fall of 1984, the requirement for chemical agent generation was "minimum percentage of purity." In January 1985, it was changed to "minimum purity or equivalent biotoxicity." In his June letter, Welch declared, "The measure of this weapon is lethality, not 'agent purity.' " GAO says the lethality issue is new and implies it may be uniquely Welch's. "Just how purity, biotoxicity, and lethality are related is not evident from the information we have seen to date," GAO adds. Furthermore, in a biting letter to Donald A. Hicks,
CIRCLE 27 ON READER SERVICE CARD October 28, 1985 C&EN
17
