Is being environmentally friendly synonymous with being safe from cancer?
The recent approval granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to Chevron for producing fuel derived from recycled plastics has stirred controversy. This decision came despite findings from a comprehensive 203-page risk assessment indicating an elevated risk of cancer among those exposed to the new chemical components. Some community members and environmental organizations argue that the EPA’s actions were inadequate.
Appealing for Caution from the EPA
On August 2nd, various environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Moms Clean Air Force, and Sierra Club, submitted a formal letter (pdf) to the EPA, expressing concern that Chevron was granted approval prematurely. They assert that the EPA might have downplayed the health concerns revealed by the risk assessment.
These concerned groups highlighted the potential dangers of Chevron’s plants that incorporate plastic-based chemicals, such as a refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi. They argue that nearby residents could face an increased likelihood of cancer due to exposure to toxic emissions through smokestacks, airports utilizing plastic-based fuel, and consumption of contaminated fish.
The letter’s authors also raised other points of contention, including:
- Inappropriate comparison with existing chemicals.
- Limited comprehension of the toxic impacts of the new chemicals.
- Inadequate safeguards for workers and local residents living in the vicinity of manufacturing facilities and users of the fuel.
The EPA maintains that it is actively engaging with these concerns and taking necessary actions.
Cancer and Health Hazards
Chevron introduced 18 novel chemicals derived from recycled plastics, intended for conversion into fuel.
The concerned environmental groups scrutinized the EPA’s risk evaluation and observed that one of the fuels significantly elevates the cancer risk to 25% for those exposed, a stark contrast to the EPA’s customary benchmark of 1 in 1,000,000 for carcinogenic risk.
The EPA’s documentation indicated that both drinking water and fish consumption expose the general population to cancer risks exceeding the one-in-a-million threshold.
Beyond the heightened cancer risk, the risk assessment demonstrated that contact with these new chemicals originating from recycled plastics is linked to:
- Skin and eye irritation.
- Immediate toxicity.
- Systemic toxicity (affecting the nervous system, body weight, and organs like the liver, kidneys, blood, and spleen).
- Reproductive and developmental toxicity.
- Effects through oral and inhalation exposure.
- Genetic toxicity.
- Potential for causing cancer.
- Toxicity to aquatic life.
- Exposure risk for consumers at gas stations through inhalation.
The EPA emphasized its constrained timeframe and data availability for evaluating a novel chemical.
“The TSCA New Chemicals Program operates within a brief time frame (mandated by law up to 90 days) to review the safety of new chemical substances, often with scant data,” expressed Mr. Landis.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) dictates that the EPA must perform safety evaluations before granting approval for new chemicals to enter the market. This statute necessitates individuals to inform the EPA at least 90 days before initiating production.
The chemical risk assessment procedures within the EPA have shown imperfections.
To begin with, the TSCA was enacted in 1976 and underwent revision only in 2016. With the 2016 amendment of TSCA, the EPA’s workload experienced a substantial increase, particularly in the domain of new chemical evaluation.
Prior to this, numerous chemicals underwent inadequate testing.
On June 15, the EPA introduced fresh regulations mandating the agency’s assessment prior to the production of chemicals derived from recycled-plastic feedstocks containing elements like heavy metals (such as arsenic, lead, and mercury), dioxins, phthalates, PFAS, bisphenol A (BPA), and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs).
If these rules are ultimately ratified in their proposed form, they would ensure that fuels couldn’t be legally manufactured or processed using waste-derived feedstocks containing these impurities without further scrutiny by the agency. Given that none of the 18 chemicals have been produced yet, this requirement would be applicable to them as well.
Securing Advancements in Chemical Safety
While proposed solutions like producing fuel from recycled plastics might seem like a positive stride in waste reduction, some remain skeptical, questioning the EPA’s evaluations of health and environmental risks.
Concerns also linger about the brief 90-day window given to the EPA for conducting risk assessments on new chemicals.
The uncertainty persists regarding whether the pyrolysis of recycled plastic—breaking it down into smaller molecules by heating without oxygen to generate liquid oil—is truly advantageous for human health and the environment. Although this process could eliminate single-use and other plastics from waste streams and water bodies, it might introduce additional health and environmental complications.
In April, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, residents near the Pascagoula refinery in Mississippi, filed a lawsuit against the EPA, seeking the court’s intervention to invalidate the EPA’s endorsement of these new recycled plastic-based chemicals.
The environmental groups behind the August 2023 letter to the EPA argue that openness is paramount for fostering public trust and ensuring safety with respect to new chemicals.
“It’s not satisfactory for the EPA to dismiss the risks posed by these chemicals based on so-called ‘conservative’ assumptions or their purported similarity to existing market chemicals and their supposed ‘environmental benefits,'” the letter conveys.
“Transparency is indispensable to cultivate public confidence and establish accountability.”