EPA says it plans to withdraw approval of Chevron’s plastic-based fuels likely to cause cancer

[ad_1]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to revoke and review Chevron’s license to produce 18 plastic-based fuels, including some that the internal agency has assessed are highly likely to cause cancer.

In a recent court filing, the federal agency said it had “substantial concerns” that the approval order “may have been made in error.” The EPA gave the green light to a Chevron refinery in Mississippi to phase out chemicals in a 2022 “climate-friendly” initiative ProPublica and The Guardian reported last year that they want to boost alternatives to petroleum.

An investigation by ProPublica and The Guardian revealed that the EPA calculates that one of the chemicals used in jet fuel is expected to cause cancer in 1 in 1 person exposed to it during their lifetime.

Another plastic-based chemical, a marine fuel additive, had a risk more than 1 million times higher than what the agency generally considers acceptable — so high that anyone with a lifetime of continuous exposure is expected to develop cancer. document obtained through a public record request. The EPA failed to address the cancer risk from the marine fuel additive in the agency’s document approving the chemical’s production. When ProPublica asked why, the EPA said it “accidentally” left it out.

Although the agency is required by law to address unreasonable health risks if it identifies them, the EPA’s approval document, known as a consent order, did not include instructions on how the company would mitigate the chemicals’ cancer risks or various other health risks. danger. in addition to workers wearing gloves.

After ProPublica and The Guardian reported on Chevron’s plans to make chemicals from discarded plastics, a community group near the refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, sued the EPA in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The group, Cherokee Concerned Citizensasked the court to invalidate the agency’s approval of the chemicals.

For months, as ProPublica and The Guardian raised questions about the plastic-based chemicals, the EPA defended its decision to allow Chevron to manufacture them. But the motion submitted on September 20the agency said it was revising its earlier position. In a statement accompanying the motion, Shari Barash, director of the EPA’s Division of New Chemicals, explained that the decision was based on “the potential infirmities of the regulation.”

Barash also wrote that the agency used conservative methods in evaluating the chemicals, resulting in an overestimation of the risk they posed. According to the EPA’s motion, the agency wants to reconsider its decision and “further consider the limitations of the risk assessment” and the “alleged weaknesses” identified by environmental groups.

Asked last week to provide an accurate estimate of the chemicals’ true risks, the EPA declined to respond, citing ongoing litigation. The EPA also did not respond to questions about why it did not admit that its approval was issued in error in the months ProPublica asked about it.

Chevron, which has not started manufacturing the chemicals, did not respond to a question about their potential health effects. In an emailed statement, the company said, “Chevron is aware that the EPA has told the court that the agency overestimated the hazards under the permits.”

As ProPublica and The Guardian noted last year, making fuel from plastic is in some ways worse for the climate than simply making it from coal, oil or gas. This is because almost all plastic is derived from fossil fuels, and additional fossil fuels are used to generate the heat that turns the discarded plastic into fuel.

Katherine O’Brien, lead attorney for Earthjustice, which is representing Cherokee Concerned Citizens in its lawsuit, expressed concern that after revoking its license to produce the chemicals, the EPA could reauthorize them, leaving its clients. in danger.

“I would say it’s a win for vigilance,” O’Brien said of the EPA’s plan to withdraw approval. “We certainly keep an eye out for a new decision that would re-approve any of these chemicals.”

Leave a Comment