This "green" fuel carries an extremely high cancer risk

 February 23, 2023

The Environmental Protection Agency recently approved a Chevron refinery to produce fuel from discarded plastics as part of a climate-friendly initiative to increase alternatives to petroleum. However, according to agency records obtained by ProPublica and the Guardian, one of the fuels could emit toxic air pollution that could cause cancer in one out of every four people exposed to it over a lifetime.

"That level of risk is obscene," Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said. "You can't let that slip."

That risk is 250,00 times greater than what the EPA division that approves new chemicals considers acceptable. According to the EPA, Chevron has yet to begin producing this jet fuel. Because of the population that lives within three miles of the refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, the cancer burden will fall disproportionately on people with low incomes and who are black.

ProPublica and the Guardian asked Maria Doa, an EPA scientist who spent 30 years there, to review the risk document. Doa, who used to run the division in charge of managing chemical risks, was so concerned about the cancer risk that she initially thought it was a typo. "EPA should not allow these risks in Pascagoula or anywhere," Doa, now the senior director of chemical policy at Environmental Defense Fund, said.

An EPA spokesperson told ProPublica and the Guardian that the agency's lifetime cancer risk calculation is "a very conservative estimate with high uncertainty," implying that the government erred on the side of caution in calculating such a high risk.

Under federal law, the EPA cannot approve new chemicals that pose serious health or environmental risks unless it devises methods to mitigate the risks. If the EPA is unsure, the law allows it to order lab testing to determine the potential health and environmental risks. The agency did neither of these things in the case of these new plastic-based fuels. The EPA did not require any lab tests, air monitoring, or controls to reduce the release of cancer-causing pollutants or people's exposure to them when it approved the jet fuel.

The EPA announced the initiative to streamline petroleum alternative approval in January 2022 as "part of the Biden-Harris administration's actions to confront the climate crisis." While the programme approved new plant-based fuels, it also approved plastic-based fuels, despite the fact that they are petroleum-based and contribute to the release of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

Although there is no mention of discarded plastics in the press release or on the EPA's website's description of the programme, an agency spokesperson told ProPublica and the Guardian that they are permitted because the initiative also includes waste-derived fuels. According to the spokesperson, 16 of the 34 fuels approved for the programme thus far are made from waste. She refused to say how many of those are made of plastic, claiming that such information was private.

All of the waste-based fuels are covered by consent orders, which the EPA issues when it determines that new chemicals or mixtures pose a "unreasonable risk" to human health or the environment. The documents detail the risks and the agency's recommendations for mitigating them.

However, the agency refuses to turn over these documents or reveal any information about the waste-based fuels, including their names and chemical structures. Without those basic details, determining which of the thousands of consent orders on the EPA website apply to this programme is nearly impossible. The EPA cited a legal provision that allows companies to claim as confidential any information that would give their competitors a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

Nonetheless, ProPublica and the Guardian obtained one consent order that covers a dozen Chevron plastic fuels reviewed under the programme. Although the EPA blacked out sections, including the names of the chemicals, the document revealed that the fuels Chevron intends to produce at its Pascagoula refinery pose serious health risks, including developmental problems in children, cancer, and damage to the nervous system, reproductive system, liver, kidney, blood, and spleen.

Aside from the chemical that has a 25% lifetime risk of cancer from smokestack emissions, another of the Chevron fuels introduced through the programme is expected to cause 1.2 cancers in 10,000 people, which is far more than the agency allows for the general population. The EPA division in charge of screening new chemicals typically limits the cancer risk posed by a single air pollutant to one case of cancer per million people. The agency also calculated that air pollution from one of the fuels is expected to cause 7.1 cancers in every 1,000 workers, which is more than 70 times the level considered acceptable for workers by the EPA's new chemicals division.

People living near the Chevron refinery are exposed to a variety of other cancer-causing pollutants, in addition to the chemicals released during the production of plastic fuels, as ProPublica reported in 2021. In that series, which mapped excess cancer risk from lifetime exposure to air pollution across the United States, Port Arthur, Texas had the highest chance of one cancer in every 53 people.

The one-in-four lifetime cancer risk from breathing Chevron jet fuel emissions is higher than the lifetime risk of lung cancer for current smokers.

Chevron spokeswoman Ross Allen wrote in an email, "It is incorrect to say that smokestack emissions pose a one-in-four cancer risk." I strongly advise you not to suggest otherwise." When asked to elaborate, Allen stated that Chevron disagrees with ProPublica and the Guardian's "characterization of language in the EPA consent order." That document, signed by a Chevron manager at its Pascagoula refinery, quantified the lifetime cancer risk from inhaling smokestack air as 2.5 cancers in 10 people, or one in four.

"We do take care of our communities, our workers, and the environment," Allen said in a subsequent phone call. "In general, this is job number one for Chevron."

Chevron stated in a separate written statement that it followed the EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act process: "The TSCA process is an important first step to identify risks, and if the EPA identifies an unreasonable risk, it can limit or prohibit manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce during the applicable review period."

"Other environmental regulations and permitting processes govern air, water, and the handling of hazardous materials," Chevron added. "Regulations under the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Acts also apply and protect the environment, as well as our communities' and workers' health and safety."

Similarly, the EPA stated that other federal laws and requirements, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's worker protection regulations, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and refinery rules, may reduce the risk posed by pollution.

However, OSHA has cautioned the public not to rely on its out-of-date chemical standards. The refinery rule requires only one pollutant to be monitored in the air: benzene. The Clean Water Act makes no mention of air pollution. Furthermore, the new fuels are not subject to the Clean Air Act, which only applies to a specific list of pollutants. States cannot also monitor for carcinogens in new fuels unless they know their names and chemical structures.

We asked Scott Throwe, a 30-year EPA air pollution specialist, how existing regulations could protect people in this case. Throwe, who is now an independent environmental consultant, claims that existing refinery testing and monitoring requirements cannot capture pollution from these new plastic-based fuels because the rules were written before these chemicals existed. He believes that equipment designed to reduce the release of other pollutants may inadvertently capture some of the emissions from the new fuels. But there's no way of knowing if that's the case.

Companies must apply to the EPA for permission to introduce new chemicals or mixtures under federal law. However, manufacturers are not required to provide any evidence that their products are safe. As a result, the EPA usually bases its predictions on studies of similar chemicals. In this case, the EPA assessed the risks posed by new plastic-based fuels using a mixture of chemicals derived from crude oil. Chevron disclosed the chemical components of its new fuel to the EPA but did not provide precise proportions. As a result, the EPA had to make some assumptions, such as the assumption that people absorb 100% of the pollution emitted.

Pyrolysis is used to extract extracts from discarded plastics. Though the parts of the consent order that aren't blacked out don't state that the oil was derived from waste plastics, a related EPA record does. The pollution emitted by Chevron's smoke stacks when the company converts the oil into fuel causes the cancer risks.

The EPA's decision to embark on the streamlined programme was influenced in part by its budget, which it claims has been "essentially flat for the last six years." According to an EPA spokesperson, the agency "has been working to streamline its new chemicals work wherever possible."

The New Chemicals Division, which houses the programme, has been particularly stressed as a result of changes to the chemicals law that have given it additional responsibilities and shorter timetables. An ongoing EPA Inspector General investigation into whistleblower allegations of corruption and industry influence over the chemical approval process is also underway in that division.

From : THE GUARDIAN