<
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/sep/30/epa-withdraws-approval-chevron-fuels-causing-cancer>
"The US Environmental Protection Agency is planning to withdraw and reconsider
its approval for Chevron to produce 18 plastic-based fuels, including some that
an internal agency assessment found are highly likely to cause cancer.
In a recent court filing, the federal agency said it “has substantial concerns”
that the approval order “may have been made in error”. The EPA gave a Chevron
refinery in Mississippi the green light to make the chemicals in 2022 under a
“climate-friendly” initiative intended to boost alternatives to petroleum, as
ProPublica and the
Guardian reported last year.
An investigation by
ProPublica and the
Guardian revealed that the EPA had
calculated that one of the chemicals intended to serve as jet fuel was expected
to cause cancer in one in four people exposed over their lifetime.
The risk from another of the plastic-based chemicals, an additive to marine
fuel, was more than 1m times higher than the agency usually considers
acceptable – so high that everyone exposed over a lifetime would be expected to
develop cancer, according to a document obtained through a public records
request. The EPA had failed to note the sky-high cancer risk from the marine
fuel additive in the agency’s document approving the chemicals’ production.
When
ProPublica asked why, the EPA said it had “inadvertently” omitted it.
Although the law requires the agency to address unreasonable risks to health if
it identifies them, the EPA’s approval document, known as a consent order, did
not include instructions on how the company should mitigate the cancer risks or
multiple other health threats posed by the chemicals other than requiring
workers to wear gloves.
After
ProPublica and the
Guardian reported on Chevron’s plan to make the
chemicals out of discarded plastic, a community group near the refinery in
Pascagoula, Mississippi, sued the EPA in the US court of appealsfor the
District of Columbia Circuit. The group, Cherokee Concerned Citizens, asked the
court to invalidate the agency’s approval of the chemicals.
Over several months when
ProPublica and the
Guardian were asking questions
about the plastic-based chemicals, the EPA defended its decision to permit
Chevron to make them. But in the motion filed on 20 September, the agency said
it would reconsider its previous position. In a declaration attached to the
motion, Shari Barash, director of the EPA’s new chemicals division, explained
the decision as based on “potential infirmities with the order”.
Barash also wrote that the agency had used conservative methods when assessing
the chemicals that resulted in an overestimate of the risk they pose. The EPA’s
motion said the agency wanted to reconsider its decision and “give further
consideration to the limitations” of the risk assessment as well as the
“alleged infirmities” identified by environmental groups."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
