AQMD Tries to Cut Risk of Leaks : Environment: Agency issues curbs to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic chemical spills. It is believed to be the first such regulatory effort in the country.

Departing from its usual role of curbing routine air pollution, the South Coast Air Quality Management District is breaking new--and potentially tricky--regulatory ground to reduce the risk of a catastrophic chemical spill.

Taking its first such action in April, the agency approved a regulation to phase out large-scale hydrofluoric acid use by 1999 unless a safe form of the substance can be developed by 1994.

The acid, used in bulk by four oil refineries and a refrigerant plant in the region, is among more than a dozen hazardous industrial chemicals that AQMD plans to consider for controls. The next substances slated for scrutiny are anhydrous ammonia and chlorine, used by scores of businesses in the South Coast Air Basin.

“If there is an accident or an earthquake of enough severity, these chemicals will get loose and a lot of people are going to get sick and die,” said Norton Younglove, chairman of AQMD’s governing board. “That’s why this needs doing.”

Believed to be the first such chemical-by-chemical regulatory effort in the country, AQMD policy adds new fuel to the debate over whether environmental regulation in the region is unfairly burdening business.

Industry officials are questioning the authority and the ability of the air quality agency to address accidental chemical releases. Ultramar, one of the oil companies affected by the new hydrofluoric acid rule, cites these concerns in a lawsuit it filed last month to block the measure.

In a broader sense, industry officials warn that not only could AQMD’s action further sour business on the Los Angeles region, they say it also could encourage regulators elsewhere to pass rules of their own, creating an onerous hodgepodge of competing restrictions.

“Unlike urban smog, where the South Coast has a uniquely difficult problem, the risk for chemical releases is not unique to Southern California,” said Bob Wyman, a Los Angeles attorney who represents businesses before the AQMD. “There is no reason a different standard should be set for Los Angeles than for San Francisco or Boston.”

Others argue that the AQMD has an obligation to protect the public from harmful air contaminants, whether by preventing catastrophic spills or curbing routine smokestack emissions.

“There is risk and we have to move as aggressively as we can to mitigate that risk,” said Jim Jenal of Citizens for a Better Environment, a Venice-based environmental group. “Businesses aren’t afraid we’ll create a hodgepodge. They’re afraid we’ll set an example.”

The AQMD effort stems largely from the chemical spill in Bhopal, India, that killed more than 2,000 people in 1984. The catastrophe was caused by a release of methyl isocyanate gas at a Union Carbide chemical plant.

In response to the disaster, the agency commissioned a report in 1985 that identified chemicals capable of causing a “major incident” in its jurisdiction of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Among them were hydrofluoric acid, anhydrous ammonia and chlorine--the first on an open-ended list of at least 16 substances that AQMD plans to consider for regulation.

Hydrofluoric acid became the earliest target after two industrial accidents in 1987 fueled public concern about local plants that use the substance in bulk. In October of that year, a hydrofluoric acid spill at the Marathon oil refinery in Texas City, Tex., sent 1,000 residents to emergency rooms and forced the hospitalization of more than 100, at least a dozen of whom show continuing eye and respiratory irritation.

Then, in November, an overflow of the chemical at Mobil’s Torrance refinery precipitated a major explosion and 15-hour fire that caused $17 million in property damage but no serious injuries.

In all, five plants in the Los Angeles region store large quantities of hydrofluoric acid: an Allied Signal chemical plant in El Segundo and four oil refineries--Mobil in Torrance, Ultramar in Wilmington, and Golden West and Powerine in Santa Fe Springs. Allied Signal uses the chemical in the manufacture of refrigerants and the refineries use it to make high-octane gasoline.

“After those accidents, we all became more aware that a serious accident can happen here, and it could have terrible consequences,” said Paul Papanek, chief of the Los Angeles County Health Department’s toxics and epidemiology unit. “There wasn’t a mood of panic, but there was a feeling this was a serious problem and we had better come to grips with it.”

AQMD officials say chlorine and anhydrous ammonia are next on their list because--like hydrofluoric acid--they are acutely toxic and tend to vaporize on release, forming a lethal, low-lying cloud. Some experts say the two chemicals present a greater danger than hydrofluoric acid because they are more prevalent in the region.

Anhydrous ammonia is used in large-scale refrigeration systems, as a fertilizer and in many chemical processes. According to the federal government, nearly 50 manufacturing plants in the four-county region each had 10,000 or more pounds of the chemical on hand during 1989, the last year for which such figures are available. Fifteen stored 100,000 pounds or more.

Chlorine is used in water treatment and the manufacture of chemicals, including household bleach and detergents. Twenty manufacturers in the area stored 10,000 or more pounds of the substance in 1989, according to federal figures, and nine had at least 100,000 pounds.

“I think that if we’re going to have our own Bhopal, it’s going to be a chemical like chlorine or ammonia, which are more widespread,” said Papanek. “These are exactly the right chemicals to go after.”

Industry officials say the danger of an accident involving anhydrous ammonia and chlorine is slight because businesses are experienced in their use and have developed extensive spill-control equipment and procedures.

“We’ve done training up and down California for the end-user,” said Laurence Schongar, vice president of Jones Chemical Inc., which stores more than 10 million pounds of chlorine at a chlorine packaging and bleach manufacturing facility in Torrance. Safety training is “much more proactive than most people realize,” he said.

If creation of the hydrofluoric acid rule serves as a guide, developing curbs on chlorine, ammonia and other chemicals will be difficult and time-consuming.

The AQMD spent more than three years studying the safety risks posed by hydrofluoric acid. That meant poring over research on the chemical and developing complex models to determine how different types of spills at each of the five plants would affect surrounding neighborhoods.

The agency also weighed the potential of plant safety improvements and new research into safer forms of the acid. And there were the economic consequences of a phase-out to consider. Should a phase-out occur, it would almost certainly prompt the closure of the Allied Signal plant because there are no known substitutes for hydrofluoric acid in the manufacture of refrigerants.

It would also force the four oil refiners to switch to an alternative refining process involving sulfuric acid. Powerine, an independent refiner employing 350, has said the switch would cost up to $80 million and possibly drive it out of business.

The rule the AQMD board passed in April sets phase-out deadlines of 1998 for the four refineries and 1999 for Allied Signal. The facilities must meet those deadlines unless a new form of the chemical is developed by 1994 that--in AQMD’s judgment--is sufficiently less volatile.

In the meantime, all five hydrofluoric acid users are required to make extensive plant safety improvements, such as the installation of automatic leak detection systems, to bolster their ability to prevent and control chemical spills.

It is unclear what types of restrictions will be considered for chlorine and anhydrous ammonia. But the rule-making, expected to get under way this summer, will involve sorting through a complex thicket of technical and policy questions, because of the number and diversity of users involved.

“AQMD is trying to bridge a gap, which is good,” said plant safety expert Najmedin Meshkati, an associate professor at USC’s Institute of Safety and Systems Management. “But it is not equipped nor capable of looking at all the safety problems at these places. That should be the function of (federal) OSHA and the EPA.”

Industry officials argue that the air quality agency should back off because state and federal authorities are dealing with the danger of chemical spills. Clean Air Act amendments passed by Congress last year, they point out, authorize the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop rules addressing the problem by 1992.

AQMD officials question whether the new authority will translate into effective action, pointing out that the new federal law does not specify what regulatory steps, if any, will be taken. Given that uncertainty, the officials say, the air quality agency has no choice but to take the lead.

“We believe we have an opportunity to set the standard for how these substances are regulated,” said Barry Wallerstein, the AQMD’s planning director. “If EPA takes action, we will make an evaluation when that occurs. But we think we need to move out front.”

Industry officials assert that even if the AQMD were able to develop acceptable regulations regarding chemical spills, it does not have the authority to do so. They point to a Jan. 17 opinion by Bion Gregory, the state legislative counsel, requested by state Sen. Robert G. Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach) at the urging of Allied Signal.

The opinion says that with the exception of instances in which a school is threatened by a potential spill, the AQMD “does not have the authority to regulate or prohibit the use of a chemical based solely on the possibility of an accidental release of that chemical.”

Defending their authority, air quality officials point to a 1989 Superior Court ruling, which allowed San Diego County air quality officials to take steps to ensure that harmful concentrations of a gas used at a local chemical plant would not escape off site in case of an accidental release.

More important, they argue, the AQMD has firm legal footing because it is responsible for enforcing a state law that prohibits the discharge of air pollutants that endanger public health.

Pat Nemeth, a deputy executive officer with the agency, said: “We are the public health air quality agency for this region. If it’s an air emission and it affects public health, we’re here. It’s just that simple.”

Underlying the debate over such legal and jurisdictional issues is more basic tension about the socioeconomic effects of the AQMD’s chemical-by-chemical regulatory drive. Industry officials assert that the strategy will create uncertainty in the business community, jeopardizing job growth.

“You never know if they’re going to get to the chemical you use and if they’ll ban it,” said Daniel McClain, president of the South Bay Chambers of Commerce. “It would be one more thing that would make businesses hesitant about going into Southern California.”