5 Southland Plants Listed by EPA as Emitting Cancer-Causing Pollutants : Toxins: Revised report lowers estimated risk to neighbors of Santa Ana’s Cal-Compack Foods Inc. from estimated 1 in 1,000 people to 1 in 10,000.
About 180 industrial plants in 34 states, including one in Orange County, 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.)
According to the EPA report, residents near Cal-Compack Foods Inc. in Santa Ana face a 1-in-10,000 chance of developing cancer because the plant uses ethylene oxide, a chemical for sterilizing equipment used to process food ingredients. Cal-Compack, located in the 4900 block of West 1st Street, makes chili powder.
EPA data released last summer that said residents near the plant faced a 1-in-1,000 chance of developing cancer.
“We haven’t had a chance to see the (new) report, so we really can’t comment on it,” said Kay Carpenter, manager of corporate communications for Beatrice-Hunt-Wesson, which owns Cal-Compack. “I do know that the statistics in the last report were old statistics. We installed an incinerator that now filters out virtually 99% of the emittants that go into the air.”
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.”
David Carroll, director of environmental programs at the Chemical Manufacturers Assn. in Washington, added: “The calculations really confirm what we’ve been saying since June--there is a continuing downward trend in releases (of pollutants).”
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.
“The potential for misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the data is significant,” Reilly warned. “At no time did EPA ever intend this data to be used to estimate an individual’s cancer risk.”
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 from 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 Fort 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.
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.
