We need climate action. But just because something gets grouped under the umbrella of things that theoretically combat climate change doesn't mean it's actually good for the planet or people. In an alarming example, production of certain alternative "climate-friendly" fuels could lead to dangerous, cancer-causing emissions.
A Chevron scheme to make new plastic-based fuels, approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, could carry a 1-in-4 lifetime cancer risk for residents near the company's refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi. A February joint report from ProPublica and the Guardian brought the problem to light. Now, a community group is fighting back against the plan, suing the EPA for approving it in the first place, as first reported by ProPublica and the Guardian in a follow-up report on Tuesday.
Cherokee Concerned Citizens, an organization that represents a ~130 home subdivision less than two miles away from Chevron's Pascagoula refinery, filed its suit to the Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 7. The petition demands that the court review and re-visit the EPA's rubber stamp of the Chevron proposal.
[...] Last year, the EPA greenlit Chevron's plan to emit some unnamed, truly gnarly, cancer-causing chemicals at a refinery in Pascagoula. The approval fell under an effort described as fast tracking the review of "climate-friendly new chemicals." Chevron proposed turning plastics into novel fuels, and the EPA hopped on board, in accordance with a Biden Administration policy to prioritize developing replacements for standard fossil fuels.
By opting to "streamline the review" of certain alternative fuels, the agency wrote it could help "displace current, higher greenhouse gas emitting transportation fuels," in a January 2022 press release. But also, through that "streamlining," the EPA appears to have pushed aside some major concerns.
[...] That 1-in-4 risk is about 250,000 times higher than the 1-in-1 million acceptable cancer risk threshold that the EPA generally applies when considering harm to the public. Another chemical listed in the approval document as P-21-0150 carries a lifetime cancer risk estimate of 1-in-8,333 for those exposed to fugitive air emissions —also far above the EPA's acceptable risk threshold. [...]
[...] For some reason though, despite its own internal risk cut-offs and federal regulation surrounding new chemical approvals, the EPA allowed Chevron to move forward without any further testing or a clear mitigation plan in place.
It's hard to say, specifically, what these EPA-approved compounds are because in the single relevant agency document obtained by ProPublica and the Guardian, chemical names are blacked out. However, the substances in question are all plastic-based fuels, as outlined in another, related document. Though obtuse, their approval seems to stem from a recently renewed national program to promote biofuel development, through a loophole that allows for fuels derived from waste.
[...] Nonetheless, the Biden Administration's push for more "biofuels" and re-upped Renewable Fuel Standard makes wide allowances for any fuel source that comes from trash—apparently regardless of the possible fallout.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday April 21, @08:44AM (7 children)
Things that "could" happen. And when we look at the source document for the above claim we see more of it, just as poorly and hysterically written:
So don't "let that get out", right? When one goes to the source document [documentcloud.org], this is what's written on page 32:
Here, "fugitive air" and "stack air" describe release origins [epa.gov] of said chemicals to air via leaks from pressurized containers (and other things that aren't confined air streams) and leaks from confined air streams ("stacks, confined vents, ducts, pipes, etc") respectively. You still have to determine the dosage. My bet is that the numbers correspond to extremely high dosages that one wouldn't see in the real world (outside of direct workplace exposure) or for which the situation would be so toxic that anyone exposed to that dosage level would die of something else first.
But if you're drumming up hysteria, out of context numbers are a scary way to do that. My take is that this more indicates the inadequacy of EPA regulation testing and documentation than a real problem. But if it is a real problem, it's not a surprise to me that they would make an exception for green technologies. This is the sloppiness of overregulation.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 21, @10:15AM (2 children)
My problem with the "no new things!!!" hysteria is: they almost always ignore how bad the existing things are by comparison.
Show me that using the plastics as fuel creates more hazardous emissions that presently permitted coal burning for electrical power generation and I'll stand with you: we should be improving our toxic emissions per kWh of energy produced, not making them worse.
Regardless of who the "front people" are for these protests, it would seem that entrenched interests are the ones supporting their efforts.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday April 21, @08:01PM (1 child)
Yes, on one hand, the purpose of this early permitting for a brand new process is to disclose the "what could possibly go wrong" full disaster release impact.
It is highly likely that the same or similar chemicals are currently sitting in tanks for use on that site already.
However, to be be fair to the NIMBYs, those are all well known and well established processes that have had a lot the kinks worked out of already. And when you set up a new process those catastrophic failures actually are more likely.
Some industrial processes really shouldn't be happening in people's backyards.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 21, @09:00PM
Especially processes that react large quantities of stuff with the atmosphere and then release the resulting products back into our atmosphere.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21, @11:53AM (1 child)
I found it to be more of a comedy:
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday April 21, @01:24PM
That region is frequently referred to as "Cancer Alley" - MD Anderson cancer treatment center, best in the world, is right there - means their clients don't have to travel so far.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21, @01:11PM (1 child)
Poor Pascagoula, I know someone from there (who doesn't go back). Personal opinion, it's been the colon of Mississippi for decades. It's a company town, per Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascagoula,_Mississippi#Economy [wikipedia.org]
Then Katrina hit in 2005 at high tide, most of the city was flooded.
My guess is that any initiative by Chevron to add new products/processes would be welcomed by the local politicians, damn the health consequences.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 21, @04:54PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21, @04:01PM (1 child)
When I dropped out of tech and was looking at affordable places to live, I briefly considered some of the towns along the Delta east of the refineries. Noped out for this very reason. It sucks not to be able to just BART to a lot of cool stuff, but I moved to far NorCal way north of the Golden Gate where there is a "whole lotta nuttin'" but the only air pollution problem is wildfire smoke yout get in the whole state anyway.
Since then there have been lots of stories about flares at refineries, often Chevron, and a incident that released a metallic dust that coated cars. Residents were advised not to grow food crops there.
Sometimes I wish I'd stayed in tech long enough to afford Los Gatos or something, but it is what it is. I live in bumfuck nowhere and it's not paradise, but at least I can grow veggies for now, and usually it's not hard to breathe.
I feel for those poor people trapped in the Deep South with no options.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 21, @04:55PM
Oil and refineries are options.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Sunday April 23, @02:10PM
From the EPA document, on page 5:
If I understand this correctly, the EPA order actually forbids this new fuel -- not approves it, as the ProPublica/Guardian article states. I must be missing something.