Chevron Waste Plastic Boat Fuels

[GordMay]

The US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has approved an ingredient, made from discarded plastic, in boat fuel, that is six times more likely to cause cancer, than a lifetime of smoking.

More about ➥ https://www.theguardian.com/environm...on-mississippi

Integrated Risk Assessment for Chevron Waste Plastic Fuels ~ EPA
➥ https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-plastic-fuels

The EPA has taken one major step, in response to concerns about the plastic-based chemicals. In June, it proposed a rule, that would require companies to contact the agency, before making any of 18 fuels, and related compounds, listed in the Chevron consent order.
➥ https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-ch...e%20retardants.

A community group, in Pascagoula, sued the EPA, asking the US court of appeals, in Washington, to invalidate the agency’s approval of the chemicals.
➥ https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...bargoed99-copy

ProPublica and the Guardian in February reported on the risks of other new plastic-based Chevron fuels that were also approved under an EPA program that the agency had touted as a “climate-friendly” way to boost alternatives to petroleum-based fuels
➥ https://www.propublica.org/article/c...re-cancer-risk

[CaptTom]

Good thing I don't drink much boat fuel!

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Good thing I don't drink much boat fuel!

Indeed. You can be proud of your self-restraint.

BUT:

The EPA’s own risk formula determined it was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance, continually over a lifetime, would be expected to develop cancer.

The consent order said the one-in-four lifetime cancer risk, referred to “stack air” – a term for pollution released through a smokestack. When the consent order said stack emissions, the EPA says, it really meant pollution released from the exhaust of the jets andboats powered by these fuels.

For every 100 people who ate fish, raised in water contaminated with that same product, over a lifetime, seven would be expected to develop cancer – a risk that’s 70,000 times what the agency usually considers acceptable.

The risk assessment makes it clear that cancer is not the only problem. Some of the new fuels pose additional risks to infants, the document said, but the EPA did not quantify the effects or do anything to limit those harms, and the agency would not answer questions about them.

Some of these newly approved toxic chemicals are expected to persist in nature and accumulate in living things, the risk assessment said.

[Lepke]

There is a Japanese company that makes a re-refining system for plastic. It takes unsorted plastic and heats it under pressure to produce a diesel that burns cleaner with a higher cetane rating with no plastic wasted. On Youtube somewhere there are videos.

[capn ken]

We are all doomed !

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lepke

There is a Japanese company that makes a re-refining system for plastic. It takes unsorted plastic and heats it under pressure to produce a diesel that burns cleaner with a higher cetane rating with no plastic wasted. On Youtube somewhere there are videos.

Blest Co. - Plastic Into Fuel
Akinori Ito has created a household appliance, that converts plastic bags into fuel, using pyrolysis, which is the transformation of a compound, into a smaller, and simpler compound, under high temperatures.

One kilogram of plastic can produce approximately one liter of oil.
The conversion process requires approximately 1 kWh of electricity. One litre of diesel gives about 0.3 kWh of electricity. This is an average value, and varies with the size of the diesel unit and its usage [load factor].
Hardly efficient.

It is able to process different types of plastics such as polyethylene, polystyrene, and polypropylene. However, it is unable to process PET bottles.
Video ➥ https://youtu.be/7n2BDAvjDPs


Another [different] one ➥ https://youtu.be/2C1E-AkCjNg

[bituman]

Why not subject some lab rats to the new fuel exhaust fumes to verify the cancer risk as determined in the model??
A similar exhaust fume produce from diesel fuel only has a slightly higher risk of cancer than the general population.

[SailingHarmonie]

Having just waded through the actual risk assessment, all 200+ pages of it (I used to do this for a living...) I see a big nothing, just zero... The plastic derived fuel stocks are not significantly different in toxicity in any meaningful way than petroleum fuels, which already contain things like benzene, one of the relatively few ACTUAL unambiguously known human carcinogens.

Somebody has an agenda here... I am not sure what it is, but it has nothing to do with the toxicity of these fuel stocks. In my experience NGOs are every bit as likely to lie, cheat and just make stuff up as the evil industrial complex. They justify it because they feel they are on the side of the angels, and anything that can bring in more donations is a good thing, true---or not.

Do not believe everything you read.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SailingHarmonie

... In my experience NGOs are every bit as likely to lie, cheat and just make stuff up as the evil industrial complex. They justify it because they feel they are on the side of the angels, and anything that can bring in more donations is a good thing, true---or not.
Do not believe everything you read.

FWIW: The risk assessment was performed [& sanitized - whatever that means] by the EPA, not an NGO.

[CaptTom]

I'm by no means qualified to read that assessment. But I do know a thing or two about the way the media and special interest groups work. When I see something like this which is full of hyperbole, attempts to stoke anger in the reader and implies a government conspiracy, I assume I'm being manipulated. That's when I turn to other sources with a different agenda or (if possible) without one. I still might not comprehend all the nuance, but at least I have a better perspective on the issue.

Thank you, @SailingHarmonie, for providing that.

[GordMay]

According to the ProPublica/Guardian reporting, previously linked:

the EPA also said that it determined the risks from the new chemicals were similar to those from fuels that have been made for years, so the agency relied on existing laws rather than calling for additional protections.
But the Toxic Substances Control Act requires the EPA to review every new chemical – no matter how similar to existing ones.
Most petroleum-based fuels were never assessed under the law because existing chemicals were exempted from review when it passed in 1976.

In the Consent Order [1], EPA approved the production and use of these new chemicals, despite significant health risks.
One of the chemicals posed a 1 in 4 risk of developing cancer, for people exposed to it.
Another chemical carried risks of a 7 in 100 cancer risk, from eating fish contaminated by it, and a greater than 1.3 in 1 cancer risk, from inhaling it.

When asked about the shockingly high cancer risks it estimated, EPA claimed its cancer risk assumptions were overly conservative, but failed to provide any information about, what it believes, are the actual risks, and pointed to undefined controls, under other laws, as controlling the risks.

Until now, the acceptable risk standard for cancer in the general population has been 1 in 1,000,000.

The risk levels EPA identified are up to 1,000,000 times greater than that.

[1] The EPA Consent Order for Chevron Waste Plastic Fuels
SCA SECTION 5 ORDER FOR A NEW CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE
“This Order is issued and entered into under the authority vested in the Administrator of the EPA by Section 5(e)(l) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2604(e)(l).
Based upon EPA's assessment of these New Chemical Substances, the administrative record, and determinations made herein, the Company may manufacture, process, distribute in commerce, use, or dispose of these New Chemical Substances in the United States ...”
➥ https://www.edf.org/sites/default/fi...4xNjkxODU5Mjky
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power.

[MarkSF]

It looks like the properties of this fuel are the same as for fuel derived directly from crude oil. That shouldn't be too much of a surprise, as plastic is made from..... crude oil.

The cancer probabilities only apply to continuous exposure. Do you know anyone who bathes in gasoline constantly? Or sits all day breathing fumes from a tailpipe? There are reasons we're not all getting cancer from regular gasoline. One is that you'd die from carbon monoxide poisoning first.

This is a classic case of a chemical that COULD cause cancer - but doesn't. Why? Because the analysis should consider the exposure that is likely.

There's a massive problem with the disposal of plastic. Recycling just seems to be a smoke and mirrors situation - there is no way to recycle the amount of plastic that is made.

The global rate of recycling is once - meaning that a plastic container is likely to be recycled once, then it goes into the environment. So all plastic ends up in the environment, but it might get used twice first, best case.

This fuel sounds like a possible way to fix the plastic waste problem - turn it into fuel. The thought occurs, that if waste plastic had a cash value (as a fuel ingredient), it would be more likely to end up in a safe waste stream - instead of the ocean.

Another way would be to burn it. In fact, just burn all garbage and get electricity back. There are challenges with treatment of the smoke, but they could be overcome.

[MarkSF]

BTW, I just checked out the MSDS for sodium chloride - scary stuff. Also, the MSDS for water recommends washing your hands after contact.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

BTW, I just checked out the MSDS for sodium chloride - scary stuff. Also, the MSDS for water recommends washing your hands after contact.

Material Safety Data Sheet:- DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE (DHMO, Hydrogen Oxide, Hydoxylic Acid, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Water)
➥ https://www.dhmo.org/msds/MSDS-DHMO-Kemp.pdf

Originally Posted by MSDS

”...
Material Safety Data Sheet:- DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE Page No. 4 of 5. - - 1/7/2008.
V 4: TOXICITY DATA (Continued)
Skin : Has been known to cause temporary wrinkling of skin.
Other : Inhalation of liquid can cause serious discomfort, possible tissue damage and is often fatal.
V 5: EMERGENCY FIRST AID
EYES: In case of contact if irritation occurs, flush with normal saline solution. Seek medical attention if condition persists.
INGESTION: If swallowed, do not induce vomiting. The patient is the best judge of what help is needed.
INHALATION: In case of excessive respiratory exposure to liquid, remove to fresh air, apply artificial respiration and/or CPR if patient is not breathing spontaneously and/or has no detectible pulse.
SKIN: In case of contact, remove excess with soft absorbent material. Contaminated clothing should be removed and dried before reuse. Keep exposed persons warm if chilled ...
... Section VIII: HANDLING AND STORAGE
Depending on circumstances and possible dissolved or suspended contaminants it may be advisable to wash thoroughly after handling. Do not get in eyes, on skin or clothing.
Do not breathe liquid. Keep container closed when not in use. Minimizing contact with this and all chemicals is recommended as a good general policy to follow.
Store in a cool to cold place. Re-close containers when not in use. Avoid Freezing except in specially designed containers...”

Another MSDS for Water ➥ https://www.labchem.com/tools/msds/msds/LC26750.pdf

You might, also, be interested in:
Material Safety Data Sheet - Sand (Quartz; Silicon dioxide; Silicon dioxide; Quartz; Sea Sand)
➥ http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/09890.htm

Here’s an interesting editorial, on Safety Data Sheets:
“When Safety Data Sheets are a Safety Hazard”
➥ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.oprd.1c00427

[CaptTom]

Wait, Gord, are you equating those parody data sheets and warnings to the content of your OP? If so, I didn't get the joke, sorry if I took you seriously.