A Howard County Council member has proposed a zoning change aimed at blocking a Columbia-based chemical company from building a pilot plastic recycling plant at its headquarters, which sits less than a half-mile from several residential neighborhoods.

W.R. Grace wants to research plastic recycling in a pilot facility at its home office near the intersection of Cedar Lane and Route 32, but neighbors are worried about the risk of pollutants. The company has a checkered history with asbestos, and became famous nationwide after a Massachusetts water pollution case, which inspired the 1998 film “A Civil Action.”

Without naming Grace, Howard council member Deb Jung filed a bill that would prohibit companies and businesses from conducting research and development using plastic pellets that would create specific pollutants in what the county calls planned employment center, or PEC, zoning districts.

Jung filed an amendment Thursday broadening what types of research and development are prohibited in PEC zones. Her amendment also would ban facilities from engaging in the catalytic conversion of plastics that requires an air permit from such zones, with the exception of federally funded and university-affiliated organizations.

“Grace’s planned activity is incompatible with the nearby residential neighborhoods,” Jung said.

Grace has said it is looking to pioneer efforts to reduce the amount of plastic waste by recycling it into “plastic precursors.” The company claims the process could reduce air emissions and keep more plastics out of oceans and landfills.

But people living nearby say they’re worried the process could release potentially dangerous contaminants into the air they breathe and that byproducts of the chemicals associated with plastics production — known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down — could get into the water supply. Such substances can cause cancer, low birth rates, miscarriages and thyroid issues, and are increasingly ubiquitous though they’re not considered safe at any level.

The company has called those claims false.

“Let us be clear: we are not burning plastic; we are not manufacturing microplastics or producing PFAS or ‘forever chemicals,’” Grace said previously.

But residents of the Cedar Creek neighborhood, some of whom have backyards abutting Grace’s property, as well as residents of River Hill village and elsewhere have vocally opposed the proposed project for months.

“The residents don’t feel safe. They don’t feel comfortable. They don’t trust their neighbor Grace,” Jung said.

A vote on Jung’s bill is set for Monday night, though it’s unclear whether it will pass.

In a two-day public hearing last week on the bill, many residents, including young children, spoke in its favor and against Grace’s proposal. Some Grace employees also spoke against the measure.

Jung, who lives within 1 ½ miles of Grace’s headquarters, supports the chemical company pursuing its project — but only at another location. If Grace continues to pursue the pilot plant, Jung will ask the company to do it in an area zoned for manufacturing.

Jung’s colleagues gave her proposal mixed reviews.

Council Chair Liz Walsh supports her colleague’s initiative, stating that the council has the authority to regulate land use, including what can and cannot be done in certain zoning districts.

“Sure you can emit stuff, but not in a land area primarily designated for living and sleeping 24 hours a day,” Walsh said.

Council member Christiana Rigby said in a statement that she understands the concerns raised about air pollutants and potential health risks, but also said she has “multiple concerns” about the bill.

“First, this legislation directly targets W.R. Grace’s operations and one specific project. Zoning laws should be applied broadly and not written to target an entity,” Rigby wrote. “Additionally, air quality regulation is not within the County Council’s authority.”

While council Vice Chair Opel Jones has not decided how he will vote on the legislation, he said in a statement more “due diligence” should have been done.

“The bill was rushed,” Jones said, and “if passed, will target one entity, which is problematic, especially considering the current permit process being evaluated by the Maryland Department of the Environment.”

Council member David Yungmann declined to comment.

Grace submitted an air permit application to the Maryland Department of the Environment in September 2023.

In a statement, Grace said it is “committed” to faithfully and fully following MDE’s evaluation process.

As of this week, the agency had not made a final decision on Grace’s proposal, according to MDE spokesperson Jay Apperson.

Meanwhile, Grace has continued its efforts to correct what it calls misconceptions about the proposal.

“With this new project, we will not burn plastic, as some who misunderstand our project and our intentions have asserted,” Grace said in a statement. “Rather, we are studying a potentially game-changing innovation for recycling plastic — a safe and effective way to solve a problem facing us all.”

Grace also said it is proud to have its headquarters in Howard County. But, if the legislation passes, the company said, it “would set a harmful precedent” that could discourage employers from settling in the county.

The Stop Grace Plastic Project, a community volunteer group, said that more than 850 county residents have signed its petition against the project. Now, it needs the full council’s support on the pending legislation.

Lisa Krausz, a resident of River Hill village and a group volunteer, said in a statement that the council needs to have residents’ backs and vote for Jung’s legislation.

“This is a key issue for Howard County residents, and a No Vote on CB-11-2025 is a betrayal of our trust in them,” Krausz said.