ustxtxb_obs_1989_09_29_50_00006-00000_000.pdf

Page 14

by

ROBERT JOHN MIHOVIL Union Carbide refinery thousandfold the cancer risk level that most policymakers consider acceptable.” Furthermore, the subcommittee said: “The existence of high cancer risks from major air toxic sources is consistent with studies finding substantially higher cancer rates in the immediate vicinity of major air toxic sources. Examples include studies which associated proximity to major chemical production facilities with cancer rates far in excess of the national average. These studies have found cancer rates two to four times the national average in areas near such facilities.” The data provided to the subcommittee by the EPA evaluated only cancer risks and only those from direct inhalation of air toxics, did not consider the combined cancer risk of the complete array of air toxics released by each facility, and excluded, according to the subcommittee, “some extremely important air toxics,” including benzene emissions and emissions from coke ovens. THE SINGLE industrial facility in the country with “estimated maximum individual lifetime risk greater than or equal to 1 in 10” is the Texaco plant in Port Neches; the pollutant in question is butadiene. Of the 45 U.S. industrial facilities listed with “estimated maximum individual lifetime risk” of cancer “greater than or equal to 1 in 100 but less than 1 in 10,” almost a third of them, 14, are in Texas. These 14 \(listing the plant first, then its location, and finally the pollutant and the “source Arco Chemicals, Channelview; butadiene; polybutadiene. Goodyear Tire, Beaumont; butadiene; polybutadiene. Polysar, Orange; butadiene; polybutadiene. Arco, Channelview; butadiene; polybutadiene. El Paso, in Corpus Christi; butadiene; butadiene producer. Shell Oil, Deer Park; butadiene; butadiene producer. Texas Petrochem, Houston; butadiene; butadiene producer. B.F. Goodrich, Port Neches; butadiene; styrene, butadiene, resins. Gen Corp., Odessa; butadiene; styrene, butadiene, resins. Goodyear, Houston; butadiene; styrene, butadiene, resins. Uniroyal, Port Neches; butadiene; styrene, butadiene, resins. ICI Americas, Bayport; ethylene oxide; production. Texaco, Port Neches; ethylene oxide; production. Texas Eastman, Longview; ethylene oxide; production. In the third table released last summer by the subcommittee, the remaining 159 of the total 205 plants are listed. These 159 facilities have “estimated maximum individ ual lifetime risk greater than or equal to 1 in 1000 but less than 1 in 100.” Twentyfive of these 159 plants are in Texas, and are: Asarco, El Paso; arsenic; primary CU smelter. Denka, Houston; butadiene; polybutadiene. Firestone, Orange; butadiene; polybutadiene. Phillips, Borger; butadiene; polybutadiene. Corpus Christi, in Corpus Christi; butadiene; butadierie producer. Dow, Freeport; butadiene; butadiene producer. Exxon, Baytown, butadiene; butadiene producer. Mobil, Beaumont; butadiene; butadiene producer. Phillips, Borger; butadiene; butadiene producer. E.I. DuPont, Beaumont; carbon tetrachloride; chlorinated hydrocarbon production. DuPont, Corpus Christi; carbon tetrachloride; chlorinated hydrocarbon production. SDS Biotech, Houston; carbon tetrachloride; pesticide production. Temple Eastex, Silsbee; chloroform; pulp and paper. “E.I. Dup/Hypalon,” Beaumont; chloroform; chlorinated hydrocarbon use. Champion International, Houston; chloroform; pulp and paper. Champion International, Lufkin; chloroform; pulp and paper. American Chrome, Corpus Christi; chromium; chemical production. Amoco, Texas City; chromium; cooling towers. Diamond Shamrock, Deer Park; ethylene dichloride; EDC production. Formosa, Point Comfort; ethlene dichloride; EDC production. Shell, Deer Park; ethlene dichloride; EDC production. Johnson and Johnson, Sherman; ethlene oxide; commercial sterilizers. Sherwood Medical, Commerce; ethlene oxide; commercial sterlizers. PD Glycol, Beaumont; ethylene oxide; ethylene oxide production. DuPont, LaPorte; methylene chloride; pesticide production. Across the bottoms of the tables released, listing the 205 industrial facilities in question, there is repeated, in large letters, the following: “The information presented on this table is intended only for the relative comparison and ranking of source categories and pollutants on a nationwide basis. The facility-specific risk estimates are not accurate determinants of local public health hazards.” Just what “the facility-specific risk estimates” do mean, people living near the questioned plants have a personal interest in finding out for themselves. R.D. 6 SEPTEMBER 29, 1989