Home > Uncategorized > Inspector General Investigation Finds That EPA Failing To Protect Millions Of Americans From Cancer Causing Toxic Air Pollution

Inspector General Investigation Finds That EPA Failing To Protect Millions Of Americans From Cancer Causing Toxic Air Pollution

EPA Fails To Regulate Emissions From Industrial Sources, Particularly In Black Communities

Parlin NJ Facility, Ashland Specialty Ingredients, Is Among The Worst In the Country

Biden EPA Rejects Inspector General’s Recommendations That EPA Ratchet Down On Regulations

Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 11.10.18 AM

If the Trump EPA were to do the same thing, it would be denounced by environmental groups and be scandalous headline news in the NY Times and Washington Post.

Last week, the US EPA Inspector General issued a scathingly critical Report on EPA’s poor performance in regulating toxic air pollution, particularly in poor and minority “environmental justice communities”. The IG severely criticized EPA for long-standing failure to strengthen regulations, despite science showing unacceptable cancer risks.

This latest IG Report follows three prior similar IG Reports that found major flaws in EPA’s air toxics program and recommended urgent corrective actions to protect public health, see:

  • Improvements in Air Toxics Emissions Data Needed to Conduct Residual Risk Assessments, EPA OIG Report No. 08-P-0020
  • Management Alert: Prompt Action Needed to Inform Residents Living Near Ethylene Oxide-Emitting Facilities About Health Concerns and Actions to Address Those Concerns,  EPA OIG Report No. 20-N-0128
  • EPA Delayed Risk Communication and Issued Instructions Hindering Region 5’s Ability to Address Ethylene Oxide Emissions, EPA OIG Report No. 21-P-0123

The most recent IG Report  – EPA Should Conduct New Residual Risk and Technology Reviews for Chloroprene-and Ethylene Oxide-Emitting Source Categories to Protect Human Health – focused on EPA regulation: (emphasis mine)

Hazardous air pollutants, known as HAPs, are those air pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects—such as reproductive effects or birth defects—or adverse environmental effects. HAPs are also known as toxic air pollutants or air toxics. The Clean Air Act, known as the CAA, Amendments of 1990 established a list of 189 air toxics that the EPA is required to regulate. Since 1990, the EPA has revised the list slightly to regulate 187 air toxics.

Here are the most explosive and controversial findings (emphasis mine):

Environmental Justice May Not Be Achieved Without New RTRs or Emission Standards

Minority and low-income populations are disproportionately impacted by chloroprene and ethylene oxide emissions. According to the EPA’s environmental justice screening tool, EJSCREEN, 100 percent of the people living in the same census block group where Denka is located are minorities and 49 percent of them are low income. The LaPlace Louisiana community is impacted by not only chloroprene emissions from Denka but also ethylene oxide emissions from two nearby chemical plants. The burden from exposure to these two toxic chemicals resulted in the 2014 NATA estimating that these residents have an individual lifetime cancer risk of 2,000 in one million at the census tract level, which is the highest in the country.

According to EJSCREEN, 50 percent or more of the people living in the same census block group as 14 of the 22 ethylene oxide-emitting facilities contributing to cancer risks of 100 in one million or greater at the census tract level are minorities or part of low-income households. Further, the same is true of 18 of the 29 ethylene oxide-emitting facilities contributing to cancer risks of 100 in one million or greater at the census block level. Unless the EPA conducts new RTRs using the new UREs for chloroprene and ethylene oxide for source categories that have not had RTRs using the new UREs or develops emission standards for area source chemical plants that emit ethylene oxide, the Agency may not meet its commitment and responsibility under Executive Order 12898 to achieve environmental justice.

Here are the EPA IG conclusions:

Conclusions

Information generated by the EPA indicates elevated cancer risks from chloroprene and ethylene oxide emissions. The Agency has not incorporated new risk values for these pollutants into residual risk reviews for most source categories. Therefore, the EPA cannot assure that current emission standards are protective of human health. The EPA should exercise its discretionary authority to conduct new residual risk reviews under the CAA whenever new data or information suggests an air pollutant is more toxic than previously determined, which is consistent with the Agency’s position in its April 2006 commercial sterilizer RTR rule. If the results of new residual risk reviews show that people are exposed to unacceptable risk levels, the EPA should revise the respective NESHAPs for source categories emitting ethylene oxide or chloroprene without cost considerations to reduce risks to acceptable levels. The EPA has missed deadlines for four technology reviews for four source categories, and one is due in 2022. For efficiency purposes, the EPA could combine the residual risk reviews with the technology reviews to conduct new RTRs for the five source categories. Without new RTRs or emission standards, the EPA may not be able to achieve environmental justice to protect the health of overburdened minority and low-income communities.

The IG found that EPA has failed to update regulations to reflect science and “the best available information” as required by law:

EPA Lacks a Process to Assure Timely Reviews of Existing NESHAPs and Uncontrolled Emission Sources When Pollutant Risk Increases

The EPA does not have a process to assure timely reviews of existing NESHAPs and uncontrolled emission sources when new or updated risk information becomes available that demonstrates that a pollutant is more toxic than previously known.

I have written many times about very similar failures in the NJ DEP’s air toxics regulatory program and explained why the recent NJ environmental justice law will not fix them, see:

Screen Shot 2021-05-11 at 7.36.58 AMThis body of work has been ignored by NJ environmental groups, environmental justice groups, and the media.

Perhaps the EPA IG Report can prompt media inquiry, particularly because a NJ facility in Parlin, Ashland Specialty Ingredients, was listed in Appendix C as one of the worst in the country. The IG Report is especially relevant because DEP is soon to propose regulations to implement the EJ law.

Getting back to the EPA IG Report.

Remarkably, the EPA Inspector General’s recommendations that EPA ratchet down on regulations to control these emissions – of known cancer causing chemicals that disproportionately adversely impact poor and black communities – were rejected by the Biden EPA under the leadership of Administrator Regan (who happens to be a black man who has been touted by environmental groups and the media as a champion of environmental justice).

Here is a key IG recommendation to update regulations based on science and ratchet down on current regulations – a recommendation that the IG describes as “unresolved”:

Revise National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for chemical manufacturing area sources to regulate ethylene oxide and conduct a residual risk review to ensure that the public is not exposed to unacceptable risks.

It is “unresolved” because the Biden EPA rejected the regulatory recommendations:

We recommend that OIG change the recommendation to: Develop and implement an internal control process to review source categories that emit pollutants where new information shows that the pollutants are more toxic than previously understood in order to determine if regulatory changes are needed.

This change is suggested because, as written, the OIG appears to be directing EPA to use a specific statutory authority for rulemaking; however, there are other authorities that could be equally effective at addressing the problem. […]

Given that no final decision has yet been made on the appropriate statutory authority to utilize for each of the rules identified above, the draft schedules below for issuing a final rulemaking are based on the assumption that we will conduct the statutorily required technology review as part of any rulemaking action for these rules. EPA will consider risk as part of the rulemakings for these source categories and we will determine whether the Agency should conduct a discretionary residual risk review during the rulemaking. The schedules for these actions are consistent with the amount of time that it takes to conduct the many steps associated with a NESHAP review.

The Biden EPA also tried to suppress the identification of specific major corporate polluting facilities who were emitting these chemicals. EPA tried to suppress Appendix C, which provided a list of specific corporate facilities, by name and location. EPA wrote:

In addition, we believe that the inclusion of the information in Appendix C is not necessary and reflects an invalid use of the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) results. […]

The identification of specific facilities in Appendix C likely reflects many false positives, while the omission of others may indicate significant false negatives. Our commitments above to consider risk as part of the review of the various source sector rules noted above will result in the proper identification of areas with elevated risks and produce the necessary accurate information to support responsible risk communication. We, therefore, request that the OIG remove Appendix C from the final report.

If the Trump EPA were to do the same thing, it would be denounced by environmental groups and be scandalous headline news in the NY Times and Washington Post.

But, those groups are silent and the legacy media has given the Biden EPA a pass.

Even the so called alternative press, like The Intercept, ran a puff piece that not only failed to properly highlight the EPA IG findings, it also failed to even mention that the IG recommendations to ratchet down on regulations were rejected by the Biden EPA and that EPA sought to suppress the identity of corporate polluters.

So. let me bullet the IG’s major negative findings and recommendations (I highly recommend that you read the whole thing):

The EPA periodically conducts the National Air Toxics Assessment, known as NATA, to assess the public health risk from exposure to air toxics. NATA is not required by regulation. The results of the NATA are not used to set regulatory standards for sources of air toxics emissions, as would the results of assessments conducted in the RTR program. NATA is a screening tool that can assist the EPA and state, local, and tribal air agencies in identifying geographic areas, pollutants, or emission sources for further examination.

The EPA’s latest NATA—that is, the 2014 NATA, which was based on 2014 emissions data and was published on August 22, 2018—estimated that more than 472,000 people lived in 106 census tracts where the individual lifetime cancer risk was elevated or equal to or greater than 100 in one million.

Based on the 2014 NATA results, the EPA identified Denka and 22 ethylene oxide-emitting facilities that contribute to individual lifetime cancer risks equal to or greater than 100 in one million at the census tract level. The 22 ethylene oxide-emitting facilities are listed in the OIG’s March 31, 2020 management alert report, along with three census block facilities that the EPA prioritized as contributing to elevated estimated cancer risks.

Monitoring Data Indicated Elevated Cancer Risks in LaPlace, Louisiana, and Willowbrook, Illinois

Monitoring data indicate that existing NESHAPs for the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry, which covers chloroprene production; Group I polymers and resins, which covers neoprene production; and commercial sterilizers may not be protective of human health.

Despite indications of elevated cancer risks from chloroprene and ethylene oxide emissions, the EPA has not incorporated new or revised UREs for chloroprene and ethylene oxide into the RTR process for many source categories that emit these pollutants. In the absence of updated reviews for the applicable source categories, the Agency cannot provide assurance that its current NESHAPs are protective.

EPA Has Not Scheduled Any New Residual Risk Reviews to Be Conducted Despite Issuance of New or Revised Higher Risk Values for Chloroprene and Ethylene Oxide

The EPA’s IRIS program issued a new URE for chloroprene for the first time in September 2010 and a revised URE for ethylene oxide in December 2016 that demonstrated that these pollutants were more carcinogenic than previously understood. However, despite chloroprene being classified as a likely human carcinogen and ethylene oxide as a human carcinogen, the EPA has not issued a schedule to conduct new residual risk reviews for Group I polymers and resins, synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry, polyether polyols production, and commercial sterilizers.

Here is one example of EPA’s rejection of an IG finding and defense of EPA foot dragging in updating EPA regulations:

We asked the Agency whether it was required to conduct new residual risk reviews for the chloroprene and ethylene oxide source categories. OAQPS asserted that, “while the CAA does require EPA to conduct a review of a NESHAP for advancements in technology, it does not require such a review for advancements related to risk.”

In addition, the Agency asserted that it is not obligated to conduct a residual risk review under any circumstances at issue in the case of Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future v. Andrew R. Wheeler, No. 19-CV-02004-VC (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2020).

Here are more major findings that show EPA is not protecting public health:

EPA Has Not Scheduled a Residual Risk Review of Hospital Sterilizers

The EPA is not required to conduct residual risk reviews of area sources with GACT standards, and the EPA has not scheduled one for hospital sterilizers. Given that ethylene oxide has been determined to be more toxic than previously known, the EPA should conduct a residual risk review for hospital sterilizers to ensure the protection of human health.

EPA Is Not Meeting Statutory Time Frames for Conducting Technology Reviews

The Agency has missed deadlines for four technology reviews for four source categories that emit chloroprene, ethylene oxide, or both, and one is due in 2022, as shown in Table 5. While the technology review for commercial sterilizers is being conducted, with an anticipated issuance of the final rule in late 2021 at the earliest, those for the other three source categories were not planned, as they were not in the regulatory agenda at the time of this report.

EPA Has Not Developed Standards for Chemical Plant Area Sources that Emit Ethylene Oxide

The EPA has not developed standards for chemical plant area sources that emit ethylene oxide. There is a NESHAP for chemical manufacturing area sources outlined in 40 C.F.R. Part 63, Subpart VVVVVV. This NESHAP, however, applies to each chemical manufacturing process unit that uses as feedstock, generates as byproducts, or produces as products any of 15 air toxics listed in the rule. Ethylene oxide is not one of the 15 listed air toxics in Subpart VVVVVV. Therefore, chemical plant area sources may emit ethylene oxide without any controls. An overdue technology review of Subpart VVVVVV is in the EPA’s long-term regulatory agenda, but the Agency has not affirmed to us that it will add ethylene oxide to the list of regulated air toxics under Subpart VVVVVV at the conclusion of the overdue technology review.

EPA Lacks a Process to Assure Timely Reviews of Existing NESHAPs and Uncontrolled Emission Sources When Pollutant Risk Increases

The EPA does not have a process to assure timely reviews of existing NESHAPs and uncontrolled emission sources when new or updated risk information becomes available that demonstrates that a pollutant is more toxic than previously known.

And these same flaws guarantee that NJ’s “landmark” environmental justice” law will fail.

NJ DEP implements the EPA’s federal Clean Air Act HAP program and the NJ specific risk assessment policies and science are similarly flawed.

Who will tell the people of NJ about this? Certainly not NJ Spotlight.

[End Note: The scope of the IG Report was narrow and the total identified impacted population was not that large, but the scientific and regulatory findings are systemic and apply to the entire EPA HAP air toxics program and therefore are national in scope and result in millions of people being adversely impacted.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
You must be logged in to post a comment.