This is insane. So, if I'm understanding this right, the EPA did an assessment and got some really bad numbers. Then, the EPA decided it wasn't a good assessment and passed it without re-doing the assessment; despite how by law all new chemicals must be evaluated. The chemical isn't named (in the ProPublica article) but it is plastic-derived. Chevron has not yet began manufacturing but currently could at any time.
This is so bad. I didn't wake up expecting to have to be politically active today. The EPA needs to do its job. :(
>This is insane. So, if I'm understanding this right, the EPA did an assessment and got some really bad numbers. Then, the EPA decided it wasn't a good assessment and passed it without re-doing the assessment; despite how by law all new chemicals must be evaluated.
To be fair, the substances in question aren't some entirely new mystery chemical. According to the EPA they're petroleum derived fuels that are similar to existing petroleum derived fuels, and that's why they waved it through.
>EPA determined that the similarities in the PIONA profiles supported the assumption that worker and fenceline community risk from these PMN substances are similar to those of existing petroleum fuels and applied appropriate risk mitigation measures to protect both human health and the environment.
ImAnAmateur|2 years ago
This is so bad. I didn't wake up expecting to have to be politically active today. The EPA needs to do its job. :(
gruez|2 years ago
To be fair, the substances in question aren't some entirely new mystery chemical. According to the EPA they're petroleum derived fuels that are similar to existing petroleum derived fuels, and that's why they waved it through.
>EPA determined that the similarities in the PIONA profiles supported the assumption that worker and fenceline community risk from these PMN substances are similar to those of existing petroleum fuels and applied appropriate risk mitigation measures to protect both human health and the environment.