The decision comes after a ProPublica investigation revealed that the EPA had found that one of the fuels had a cancer risk more than 1 million times higher than the agency usually considers acceptable.
The U.S. 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 1 in 4 people exposed over their lifetime.
“Burning plastic is a great idea!” --No one who has ever been near burning plastic.
“in error”
Also known as: "Someone higher up took a bribe or inserted personal politics into a government agency and we got caught doing nothing about it. "
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
Climate friendly alternative to petrol is burning plastic based fuel? Plastic is made from fuel, yes? This is ludicrous
“Tackling our nation’s climate crisis is a comprehensive and collaborative effort across all of EPA,” said Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Michal Freedhoff.
“Using sound science to streamline the review of more environmentally friendly chemical substitutes will help advance the Agency’s climate goals and protect human health and the environment.”
I don’t know much about this persons affiliation but she sounds like every corporate meeting ever, and anytime i see “sound science” i think climate change denier.
Really she’s a chemist and that’s her expertise so how the F can she be an expert in chemicals and think burning plastic was ok?
Guess we can’t expect sanity from any US dept any longer
Pyrolysis sounds really cool in theory but in practice it’s wasteful, produces lower quality fuel that is harder to refine, and contains a ton of benzene.
There’s a dude on youtube making one of these in his backyard, basically a speed run to turn his house into a superfund site. I have no idea how people can see burnt plastic as a “green” alternative.
