Thursday, March 2, 2023

Two Chemical Companies Sued due to Chemical Emission in 'Cancer Alley'

 The Guardian posted the article “US justice department sues two companies over pollution in Louisiana’s ‘Cancer Alley’”. Cancer alley is a stretch of land between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana. There are a quarter of the total petrochemical production in the US, several pipelines, oil refineries and other gas/oil operations that add to the toxicity in cancer alley. The main chemical issue is at the Pontchartrain Works facility in Reserve, Louisiana. The site is being sued due to violating the clean air act and presenting an imminent danger to public health and welfare. The environmental protection agency (EPA) is seeking a court order to force Deneka, who currently owns the facility, to take immediate action to prevent chemical emissions. The chemical causing the health risk is chloroprene, which was established as a human carcinogen in 2010. Chloroprene is emitted from the synthetic rubber neoprene which is produced at the facility. EPA air monitoring has shown that the air contains significantly more than the recommended lifetime exposure of 0.2ug/m3. 


Figure 1: Chloroprene chemical structure (adapted from NIH)


The residents in cancer alley have attempted to raise awareness to the health risks they have been facing for 6 years. The population in the area  surrounding cancer alley is predominantly black, which the community stated their minority status has prevented earlier change. St Johns Baptist's parish is a home for many in the community, they have persistently been fighting for change to reduce their health risk. There is also an elementary school only half a mile away from the plant, the children that attend have a higher risk for health effects from chloroprene than the average adult. The current chloroprene emissions present a significant risk for developing cancer to children under 16 years. 


The Pontchartrain Works facility was first opened by DuPont in 1968. Dupont is the second company listed in the lawsuit. It is suspected that DuPont recognized the risk of the chloroprene emissions after it was established as a human carcinogen in 2010, leading them to sell the plant.  A deal was made to sell the plant to Denaka in 2015. Although the plant is now owned by Deneka, DuPont still owns the land the plant is located on and their approval is needed to reduce emissions. Since Deneka took over the plant, they have reduced the chloroprene emission by ~80%. A statement was released by Deneka saying  “DPE is in compliance with its air permits and applicable law. EPA is taking an unprecedented step – deviating from its permitting and rulemaking authorities – to allege an ‘emergency’ based on outdated and erroneous science the agency released over 12 years ago,”.  However, Deeneka may fail to realize that this lawsuit was constructed from multiple years of air monitoring data. 


Thousands of people are breathing in the chloroprene emissions daily, leading to a significant higher cancer risk than typically allowed. The residents in cancer alleys being exposed have a much greater risk of developing cancer when compared to the majority of the USA. The EPA and the community hopes that this lawsuit will enforce change to decrease the chloroprene emission in cancer alley. 


References:

Chloroprene. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chloroprene (accessed Mar 2,  2023).

Laughland, O. US Justice department sues two companies over pollution in Louisianans ‘Cancer Alley.’ https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/28/us-justice-department-lawsuit-cancer-alley-louisiana-dupont-denka (accessed Mar 2,  2023).


1 comment:

  1. Your title and lede are appropriately informative. The further explanation is reasonably concise. This is a long-standing problem and the court case raises important issues. The article takes pains to quote both sides of the case, as you note. That is, of course, important. Another thing you note is the problem of assigning responsibility to harms accumulated over years during which ownership of the offending facility has changed. Overall this kind of article tends to give chemistry a bad name. Chemistry as a scientific endeavor is closely associated with companies like DuPont. But, of course, it is EPA chemists who are identifying the problem, as you note. It is frequently the case that chemistry is involved in creating, identifying and ultimately (hopefully) solving the problem. Chemistry is, or course, the means by which harmful emissions can be eliminated and/or alternative, safer products and processes can be developed.

    ReplyDelete