SoylentNews

upstart writes:

Proposed emissions from a Mississippi Chevron plant could raise locals' cancer risk by 250,000x the acceptable level and a community group is fighting back:

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.

Original Submission