5 Southland Plants Listed by EPA as Emitting Cancer-Causing Pollutants

About 180 industrial plants in 34 states, including five in Southern California, are spewing toxic pollutants that increase nearby residents’ chances of developing cancer far in excess of levels considered acceptable by the government, new Environmental Protection Agency figures show.

But the findings generally are more reassuring than those contained in a similar report seven months ago. The reasons include fresher data, refined calculations and actual reductions in emissions at some plants, said EPA Director William K. Reilly.

In June, 205 plants across the country were on the EPA list. But the EPA has revised downward the cancer risks for residents near 139 of the plants, while assigning higher estimates to 42 plants. (One plant rating was unchanged; the others have closed or merged.)

Among the most dramatic downward revisions of cancer risks involved Unocal Corp.’s chemical plant in La Mirada.

In June, the EPA estimated that the lifetime cancer risk to a resident near Unocal’s plant could be greater than 1 in 100. The new figures put the risk at 1 in 10,000.

As a comparison, one in three Americans on average will develop cancer in his or her lifetime.

“We are pleased that the EPA has downgraded its estimate of a cancer risk at and around our plant,” Arthur Bentley, a Unocal spokesman, said Friday. “We have always operated the plant in accordance with all laws and regulations and with the highest regard for the safety of employees and neighbors.”

Reilly said in a letter this week to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), who released the EPA data, that the estimates are intended only to help officials compare and rank sources of pollutants across the country--not to serve as guides on health risks.

Nevertheless, Waxman said, the overall data suggest that industries throughout the country are able to release significant amounts of cancer-causing chemicals without violating any environmental laws.

“There has been some reduction in risk,” he said. “But the basic message remains the same--far too many plants are posing serious health risks to the public.”

The EPA estimates that about 2.7 billion pounds of more than 275 different toxic chemicals are emitted annually. While federal agencies recognize more than 100 chemicals released as potentially hazardous, current EPA regulations impose emission ceilings on less than 10% of them.

Among the unregulated carcinogenic emissions are butadiene, produced by rubber manufacturers; chloroform, a byproduct of the pulp and paper industry; ethylene oxide, a sterilizing agent, and carbon tetrachloride and methylene chloride, industrial solvents.

In evaluating harmful chemicals, EPA generally considers a cancer risk higher than 1 in 1 million as unacceptable.

The cancer-risk estimates are based on an assumption that a person lives his entire life at the edge of a plant and within 200 meters of the point of emission, according to James Weigold, deputy director of the emissions standards division of EPA’s office of air programs.

“There’s nothing for anybody to become alarmed about, but it’s something to be concerned about,” he said in a telephone interview from his Durham, N.C., office. “Remember, this is long-term exposure we’re talking about. Not Bhopal (India).”

Now, as before, residents near the Texaco plant in Ft. Neches, Tex., were assigned a 1-in-10 chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to emissions of butadiene. No other plant was in this category. “That’s 100,000 times higher than EPA’s goal,” Waxman said.

Six plants were in the 1-in-100 risk category, mostly in Texas as well.

Most of the California plants fell in the 1-in-10,000 category. Besides Unocal’s La Mirada facility, they included Dow Chemical, Pittsburg; Louisiana Pacific, Antioch; Simpson Paper, Anderson; American Pharmaceutical, Irwindale; Cal-Compack Foods, Santa Ana; Micro-Biotrol, Vernon, and Santa Maria Chili, Santa Maria.

Three other California plants had estimated cancer risks of less than 1-in-10,000: Louisiana Pacific, Samoa; Simpson Paper, Fairhaven, and, again, Dow Chemical, Pittsburg--based on emissions of another pollutant.

According to Weigold, the fact that Dow appears twice underscores another shortcoming in current methods of assigning cancer risks: They do not take into consideration the effects of combining more than one type of pollutant.

Weigold said there are proposals in Congress to amend the Clean Air Act and require such calculations.

When Waxman and two other congressmen first released the EPA data in June, industry reacted angrily, saying that the information was being misinterpreted and was based on data as much as four years old.

The congressmen asked the EPA to update and revise its cancer-risk estimates, using the latest methods and information. Reilly sent the updated information to Waxman this week.

Waxman said the information emphasizes “the need for the strongest possible federal air toxics legislation,” adding that “each such plant should be promptly and thoroughly investigated.”

Reilly said his agency has begun conducting “field checks” of some of the plants and has “entered into discussions with industry to get emissions reductions before a new Clean Air Act requires them.”

ON EPA’s LIST

These are California industrial plants identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as among those releasing toxic chemicals that increase the lifetime risk of developing cancer by people who live nearby: RISK AT LEAST ONE IN 10,000 Unocal, La Mirada.

Dow Chemical, Pittsburg.

Louisiana Pacific, Antioch.

Simpson Paper, Anderson.

American Pharmaceutical, Irwindale.

Cal-Compack Foods, Santa Ana.

Micro-Biotrol, Vernon.

Santa Maria Chili, Santa Maria. RISK LESS THAN ONE IN 10,000 Dow Chemical, Pittsburg.

Louisiana Pacific, Samoa.

Simpson Paper, Fairhaven.