EPA Approved a Fuel Ingredient Even Though It Could Cause Cancer in Virtually Every Person Exposed..

[Nevilledog]

https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-approved-chevron-fuel-ingredient-cancer-risk-plastics-biofuel

The Environmental Protection Agency approved a component of boat fuel made from discarded plastic that the agency’s own risk formula determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. Current and former EPA scientists said that threat level is unheard of. It is a million times higher than what the agency usually considers acceptable for new chemicals and six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking.

Federal law requires the EPA to conduct safety reviews before allowing new chemical products onto the market. If the agency finds that a substance causes unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the EPA is not allowed to approve it without first finding ways to reduce that risk.

But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead to make the new boat fuel ingredient at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Though the substance can poison air and contaminate water, EPA officials mandated no remedies other than requiring workers to wear gloves, records show.

ProPublica and the Guardian in February reported on the risks of other new plastic-based Chevron fuels that were also approved under an EPA program that the agency had touted as a “climate-friendly” way to boost alternatives to petroleum-based fuels. That story was based on an EPA consent order, a legally binding document the agency issues to address risks to health or the environment. In the Chevron consent order, the highest noted risk came from a jet fuel that was expected to create air pollution so toxic that 1 out of 4 people exposed to it over a lifetime could get cancer.

*snip*

[Tetrachloride]

1. Everyone wins

The elevator and the shaft

[BComplex]

2. Here's the key sentence that shows somebody made a bunch of $$ for the approval of this

murderous chemical:

But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead to make the new boat fuel ingredient at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

[cbabe]

3. Harvard environmental law professor resigns from ConocoPhillips

https://www.theguardian.com › us-news › 2023 › aug › 04 › harvard-professor-resigns-conocophillips-board

Harvard environmental law professor resigns from ConocoPhillips after ...

1 day agoFri 4 Aug 2023 17.58 EDT. Jody Freeman, a renowned environmental lawyer at Harvard University, has stepped down from a highly-paid role at the oil and gas giant ConocoPhillips, following months...

(Shills are everywhere.)

[ProfessorGAC]

4. I Find It Odd That...

...no matter where or how I search I can find ZERO information as to the chemistry involved or the distillate produced.
Under Right-To-Know, no chemical can be this secret. None!
I think a bribery trail exists somewhere and needs to be followed.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

5. That is explained in the risk assessment hyper-linked in the OP

1.2 Chemistry
Fuel streams such as these NCSs are comprised of dozens of different paraffinic (isoparaffinic), naphthenic, olefinic, and aromatic molecules (PONA), which makes determining their chemical makeup challenging. In addition, the composition of these substances is variable since the fuels are defined using physical properties such as boiling point rather than their precise chemical makeup. However, the composition of these substances can be estimated using gas chromatography techniques to measure their P(I)ONA profile, which describes the relative concentrations of the different types of hydrocarbon within a given fuel stream (some measurements do not distinguish between paraffinic and isoparaffinic hydrocarbons). Chevron has provided some compositional data for of the petroleum analogues, which can also be used as an approximation for the chemical makeup of the NCSs.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. That Isn't Enough

I can read.
All those species listed (especially paraffins & olefins) are not highly toxic. Nothing close to the degree of concern.
The same is true of naphthenics, which are generally not volatile enough to create concerning exposures, at least in the short term.
There is a compound in there that has to be both toxic & volatile. Many aromatic compounds would fit that, but there is no way (given they're using GC, which can be outfitted with quadropole MS) to specifically identify the most concerning substances.
So no, what I'm looking for is not in that section. And, I want to know why.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

12. Just trying to help. If you want a technical answer to a technical question,

maybe DU isn't the place to look for it.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. I Know You Haven't Been Here Long

I AM the technical answer person here. PhD physical organic chemistry; 43 years of experience.
My question isn't technical at all. It's about how they get away with keeping toxic compounds a secret to the public.
I actually can already envision how they were recycled plastic to get those classes of compounds. But, what they list wouldn't be of serious toxicity concerns. Some concern, yes. Too much exposure to anything is bad, but minute exposure causing this level of concern is abnormal from my experience in the industry. Keeping it secret is even more abnormal.
Finally, this is a discussion board. I was fomenting discussion, not looking for an answer.

[ZoltarSpeaks]

25. "Don't you know who I am?"

Always a great opener to foment discussion.

[waddirum]

6. I'm just looking for a name

Either a trade name or a chemical name. I would appreciate any links in the right direction.

[ProfessorGAC]

7. I Can't Find It!

I even searched the patent office database!
One article on Propublica stated the compound is kept secret. I figured that can't be right, so I started searching.
I searched the EPA & OSHA TSCA inventory lists.
I searched ConocoPhillips' inventory.
I searched patents over the last 5 years by chemical compound & process, including those recycling plastics.
I can't find anything that is obviously the compound the article is about.
I developed a few trade secrets when still working and we still had to tell the EPA & OSHA about it. Once you do that it's public information. And, nothing I developed would have ended up on a TSCA inventory. We still had to make at least its existence public.
Like I said, I don't get it.

[Prairie_Seagull]

26. Thanks for your hard work ProfessorGAC. nt

[hunter]

13. It could be these chemicals are already common pollutants...

... and nobody wants to open that can of worms.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. I See Your Point

But, I can't accept that although that's a nice, straightforward explanation.
The article is about something that is far more concerning than all those other toxic chemicals.
Despite what happened here, the hazard ratings of chemical compound is based on copious data, physiological, historical & biochemical. There are thousands of scientists worldwide for whom this their entire job.
If common chemicals were this much worse than advertised, we'd have heard about it long ago.
There is something fishy going on in this case.

[hunter]

19. I agree with you.

In the larger picture it's possible that the best thing we can do with plastics is to bury them in places where they won't be disturbed for thousands of years.

Using plastics as fuel, however it's accomplished, may have been a bad idea from the start.

Is there any graceful way to admit that an expensive plastics-to-fuel project, supposedly a "climate friendly" solution to plastic waste disposal, is a toxic failure? There should be.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Graceful?

Last edited Sun Aug 6, 2023, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

I think probably not.
I'm not convinced at the eco friendly approach, except for finding ways to keep plastic out of our water.
But, unless it's converted to methane or ethane, the energy derived per metric ton of CO2 created won't be any better than petroleum.
Now, reusing plastic has some merit, absent a safe & effectively permanent means of hiding it. Like your burying idea, assuming it's foolproof.
But, making it into another low energy density (on an emissions basis) isn't helping atmospheric warming.
So, it was greatly oversold. Nice idea, not a great, world-changing one.

[WarGamer]

8. EPA and NHTSA are dirty corporate whores.

Always cooperating with Big Industry at the risk and peril of Americans.

[Hekate]

10. What year was this? Who appointed the EPA head at the time? This is appalling.

[Takket]

11. " EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks"

What methodology was used to determine that? If the scientists classify the risk then how did the EPA determine they were overhyping the risk? Obviously it wasn’t the same scientists…

[ProfessorGAC]

21. My Question Above!

I'd start trying to find a bribery trail.
I worked on products that required EPA registration. Mostly microbicides. Not sure where this shortcut came from. We never ran into an opportunity to just have toxicology data ignored. Admittedly, our reaction products weren't highly toxic, and were nonvolatile, so it was impact on waterways & groundwater, not air. But, carcinogenic is carcinogenic and there were no cases where EPA or OSHA management pulled a "nothing to see here" in contradiction to their own experts.

[scipan]

22. Did you see this?

comparing the applicable experimental conditions of these methods with the physical properties of the petroleum analogues, it is clear that multiple methods may be required to estimate their composition. However, Chevron has not specified which characterization method was used to determine the composition of the petroleum analogues. They also have not indicated what information was obtained using the distribution within a hydrocarbon category (i.e, not directly measured). The percentages associated with the major components are relative to the entire PMN substance and not respective to the individual category (Table 2).

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23886219-integrated-risk-assessment-for-chevron-waste-plastic-fuels

Seems kinda sketchy.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. That Tells Me One Thing

They know the exact composition!
And, I dispute the " it is clear that multiple methods may be required to estimate their composition. However, Chevron has not specified which characterization method was used to determine the composition of the petroleum analogues" statement.
GC-MS is a single analytical technique in which the mass spectrometer is used as the detector. The GC is only doing the separation of the individual constituents.
It's a paired technique, but not multiple. Likely takes 20 minutes, excluding prep, which is unlikely to be more than 5 minutes.
I still don't get how they got away with not including the substance & quantity range off their public documents, like an SDS.
Even in cases of proprietary products, the most health impacting compounds have to be listed. Geez, they include 1,4-dioxane on a shampoo SDS, and it's only a few parts per million. In use, given the water solubility and time of exposure, the risk is infinitesimal, yet it's listed. Somebody got paid.

[scipan]

28. Thank you for your expertise in this.

I was thinking that it being proprietary was maybe the reason but you have shot that idea down.

I hope some congresscritters get on this one.

[NowISeetheLight]

16. So When

So when all the refinery workers get cancer, and their kids are born with a third eye in their forehead and no fingers, they can claim "they had no idea".

[dalton99a]

17. No names or identifying info

Only

Chevron Waste Plastic Fuel streams P-21-0144 through 0150, P-21-0152 through 0158, and P-21-0160 through 0163

[Brainfodder]

18. Not THE ONION or Borowitz?

Hopefully that BS gets put on BLAST and quickly changed.

[Duppers]

23. What good is the EPA if they whitewash ...

industrial prerogatives?

Just WRONG.

[Prairie_Seagull]

27. Read the linked story if you haven't. Mislabeling emmisions? The EPA. Give me a break.

As apposed to protecting us. It appears the EPA is actively trying to suppress honest scientifically produced data in order OK the burning of plastics in boats and planes. Simplified but basically. Sure am glad they got rid of Safeway bags.

Agree with the professor. Something smells off in the fridge.

The last para of the linked story.

“This new information just raises more questions about why they didn’t do this the right way,” said Daniel Rosenberg, director of federal toxics policy at NRDC. “The more that comes out about this, the worse it looks.”