Recalling Bhopal
Government reports citing serious problems with chemical safety data go back to at least the 1980s. That’s when an accidental release of methyl isocyanate from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killed more than 5,000 people.
The 1984 disaster spurred the Environmental Protection Agency to attempt to create a chemical accident database. The effort began in 1985. But researchers quickly found that many serious chemical accidents never came to the attention of any federal agency. By 1989, funding for the project had ended.
Former EPA Administrator Bill Ruckelshaus, who led that initiative, said he was looking for hard data to help policymakers ensure that the chemical industry had proper safeguards in place. Then as now, he said, “We should be carefully assessing accidents or instances in which toxic materials have been released and find out … why that happened and take steps necessary to reduce the chances of it happening in the future.”
The News identified at least a dozen subsequent reports from investigators and researchers citing a lack of good data. Moreover, reports repeatedly said that government agencies had the authority to collect the needed data but didn’t.
“Here we are 29, 30 years after Bhopal and there is no, absolutely no, way of making any credible statement or answering a simple question: Are we getting better or are we getting worse?” Mannan said.
Recent criticism has focused on the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, an agency launched in 1998 with a mission to investigate chemical accidents that caused or risked fatalities, serious injuries and major property damage.
According to a series of reports by the Government Accountability Office and various inspectors general, the board was supposed to have created a database to help gauge chemical safety trends. But it hasn’t yet done so.
Board officials dispute that such an effort is mandatory under statute and say that, even if it were, the board lacks the resources to carry it out.
“There’s a lot in the federal government that’s authorized in statute but Congress hasn’t put any money or focus on,” said Daniel Horowitz, the board’s managing director.
The board primarily focuses on conducting investigations of individual accidents at the behest of Congress, such as its probe of the fire and explosion in West and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It requested additional funds for the 2014 budget, from $10.5 million to $11.4 million. But there is no specific funding in the budget request for improving data collection and analysis.
“We agree that the current system is very fragmented and incomplete, and it’s a problem,” Horowitz said.
But it’s “somewhat atypical” to have an independent investigative agency collect data, he said. The EPA is better-suited to that task because it already collects accident data as part of its Risk Management Program for extremely hazardous materials, Horowitz said.
That EPA program oversees only certain designated chemicals. Not on its oversight list is ammonium nitrate, the chemical that devastated West.
Plugging the gap
At least three agencies could step up to fix the problems with chemical safety data.
The Chemical Safety Board has the legal authority to create a comprehensive system. The National Response Center already maintains the largest database of preliminary accident reports. But it’s unclear what additional resources either would need to improve data collection and whether Congress would appropriate the funds.
The best solution may be a pilot chemical accident data collection effort under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The National Toxic Substances Incident Program gathers data from multiple state and local agencies, in combination with federal resources such as the NRC.
“That’s as good a data surveillance program as you will get currently,” Mannan said.
But Congress has appropriated only enough funding for 10 states to participate on a cost-sharing basis. A previous accident surveillance program, similar but less comprehensive, had funding for 14 states, one of which was Texas. After the congressional budget cuts, Texas declined to share the cost and dropped out of the program.
“We’re trying to get states to buy into it,” said Maureen Orr, an epidemiologist with the National Toxic Substances Incident Program. “Unfortunately, we don’t have the funding to do every state.”
Nor does the program presently receive any funding from either the EPA or the Chemical Safety Board, though both agencies benefit from data-sharing agreements with the program.
“We’re always trying to increase partnerships,” Orr said.
Combining the duplicative efforts of several agencies, each with its own mandate to capture part of the chemical safety picture, could mean an overall cost reduction, experts said.
“It’s extremely important to know what your problems are,” Orr said. “It would allow them [states] to target their limited resources.”
Industry self-reports
At least one chemical industry group has been collecting its own accident data since 1994.
Over 100 member companies of the American Chemistry Council participate in the program, in which accident and environmental impact data is gathered according to a uniform set of criteria. The data helps show a return on the group’s investment in safety, the council says, and that amounts to tens of millions of dollars each year.
“The key concern was that external stakeholders said it’s hard to determine if you’re making real progress,” said Dan Roczniak, senior director of the program. “This was a way to measure hard data that people on the outside wanted to see.”
Council spokesman Scott Jensen said small operations often benefit most from the data collected. Without the resources to pay for ongoing safety or research programs, they can learn best practices from the experience of much larger industry players.
Despite the council’s efforts, its membership represents only a segment of the chemical-manufacturing industry, which according to the U.S. Census Bureau includes more than 22,000 companies. Moreover, while the council publicly releases company summary data on severe chemical accidents, the data is neither detailed nor comprehensive enough to inform regulations.
In fact, many chemical companies strongly oppose publicly releasing their accident data, Mannan said.
“They say, ‘We have enough problems dealing with lawsuits,’” he said. “I mean, I have very good relationships with these people, but this data issue, I just can’t get them onboard.”
In any case, experts say, relying on companies to self-report accident data is not a very good idea.
The human effort, time and cost required to ensure that data is accurate, uniform and useful for study often runs counter to a company’s financial interests.
“The motivation is not always there,” said Andy Podgurski, a professor of electrical engineering at Case Western Reserve University and co-author of a study on “Big Bad Data” published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.
“Why would a company or organization do data checking? They might do it because there is a liability risk. They might do it because they feel it’s the right thing to do,” Podgurski said in an interview. “But even in an honest organization, deadline financial pressures will mitigate those efforts.” |
發表於 2013-9-4 19:52
| 