Does eco-friendly necessarily mean cancer-safe?
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permitted Chevron to manufacture fuel made from components of recycled plastics, despite data from its 203-page risk assessment showing an increased risk of developing cancer for those exposed to the new chemicals. Some communities and environmental groups assert that the agency didn’t do its job.
Environmental Groups Plead With EPA to Step on the Brakes
On Aug. 2, environmental groups, including Environmental Defense Fund, Moms Clean Air Force, and Sierra Club, presented a letter (pdf) to the EPA saying that the agency gave Chevron the green light too soon. They claim the EPA potentially minimized health concerns that the risk assessment revealed.
The concerned organizations pointed out that Chevron manufacturing plants implementing these plastic-based chemicals, such as a refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, could put nearby residents at increased risk of developing cancer in their lifetime through exposure to toxic fumes via air smokestacks, nearby airports using the plastic-based fuel, and contaminated fish.
The authors of the letter also cited other concerns, including:
- Unwarranted comparison to other existing chemicals.
- Lack of understanding of the toxic effects of the new chemicals.
- Inadequate protections for workers and residents living near manufacturing plants and using the fuel.
The EPA maintains that it is working closely on this issue and addressing concerns as they arise.
Cancer and Other Health Risks
Chevron proposed 18 new chemicals to be made from recycled plastics and then manufactured into fuel.
The concerned environmental groups examined the EPA’s risk assessment. They noted that data reveal one of the fuels substantially increases cancer risk to 1 in 4 people exposed to the fuel, which is exponentially greater than the 1 in 1,000,000 typically allowed by the EPA under its carcinogen risk assessment guidelines.
The EPA document showed that the cancer risk estimates for drinking water and fish ingestion both exceed the one-in-a-million benchmark for the general population.
In addition to increased cancer risk, the risk assessment revealed that exposure to these new chemicals made from recycled plastic is connected to:
- Skin and eye irritation.
- Acute toxicity.
- Systemic toxicity (neurotoxicity, body weight effects, and liver, kidney, blood, spleen, and other organ effects).
- Reproductive and developmental toxicity.
- Oral and inhalation portal of entry effects.
- Genetic toxicity.
- Carcinogenicity.
- Aquatic toxicity.
- Consumer inhalation exposure at gas stations.
Response From EPA and Chevron
“EPA made several very conservative assumptions when evaluating the lifetime cancer risk that ultimately resulted in a significant overestimate of risk for this chemical,” Jeffrey Landis, an EPA spokesperson, told The Epoch Times in an email. “These risk estimates are likely to be higher than what actually occurs in the real world.”
The EPA added that it has limited time and data to assess a new chemical.
“The TSCA New Chemicals Program has a short time period (up to 90 days as mandated by law) to review the safety of a new chemical substance, often with very limited data,” Mr. Landis wrote.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) states that the EPA is legally required to conduct safety assessments before it permits any new chemicals to be introduced to the market. The act requires persons to notify the EPA at least 90 days before starting manufacturing.
The chemical risk assessment at the EPA hasn’t been perfect.
Firstly, the TSCA was enacted in 1976 and wasn’t updated until 2016.
“When TSCA was amended in 2016, it dramatically increased EPA’s workload, especially when it comes to the review of new chemicals,” Mr. Landis wrote.
Before this, many chemicals weren’t adequately tested.
On June 15, the EPA proposed new rules that would require the agency’s review before the manufacturing of chemicals made from recycled-plastic feedstocks containing substances such as heavy metals (like arsenic, lead, and mercury), dioxins, phthalates, PFAS, bisphenol A (BPA), and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs).
According to Mr. Landis, if finalized as proposed, this requirement would ensure fuels could not be lawfully manufactured or processed using waste-derived feedstocks containing these impurities without additional agency review. Since any of the 18 chemicals have yet to be manufactured, this requirement would also apply to them.
“We are not currently processing pyrolysis oil at Pascagoula,” Ross Allen, external affairs advisor at Chevron, told The Epoch Times in an email. “But we do believe that plastics-recycling processes like this can be an important tool for managing plastics waste.”
Ensuring Progress in Chemical Safety
While proposed solutions, such as fuel manufactured from recycled plastics, sound like a positive step in reducing waste, some remain unconvinced and still question the validity of the EPA’s health and environmental risk assessments.
Some are also concerned about the short 90-day period afforded the EPA to conduct a risk assessment of new chemicals.
The question remains whether pyrolysis of recycled plastic—breaking down plastic into smaller molecules by heating it at high temperatures without oxygen to produce liquid oil—is beneficial for human health and the environment. Although this process could remove single-use and other plastics from the waste stream and waterways, it could present additional health risks and environmental challenges.
In April, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, residents in a subdivision near the refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi, brought a lawsuit against the EPA, requesting that the court disqualify the EPA’s approval of the new recycled plastic-based chemicals.
The environmental group authors of the August 2023 letter to the EPA maintain that transparency is critical for public trust and safety concerning new chemicals.
“It is not sufficient for EPA to say that the risks presented by these chemicals are not of concern because the agency used purportedly ‘conservative’ assumptions, or because the new chemicals supposedly present risks comparable to similar chemicals on the market and are ‘better for the environment,'” the letter reads.
“Transparency is vital for fostering public trust and ensuring accountability.”