Lauren Kaeseberg, an activist from Stop Sterigenics in West Chicago. Sterigenics was a sterilization plant in Willowbrook, IL, that used EtO. (Image credit: Camille Fine / Chicago Tribune)
By Neil Carman
Last month, we raised awareness of the TCEQ’s proposal to the EPA to reduce the Integrated Risk Information System’s (IRIS) risk factor of the carcinogenic air pollutant ethylene oxide (EtO). (A huge thank you to everyone who submitted comments to the TCEQ asking them to retract their proposal to weaken the IRIS risk factor!)
Even though the comment deadline is passed, it is vital to educate Texans about ethylene oxide, or EtO, and explore learning how communities can put pressure on industries that use EtO to persuade them to seek safer alternatives.
Where does EtO come from and how is it used?
Ethylene (C2H4) is a major petrochemical intermediate and derivative made from ethane (C2H6) gas that is heavily used to produce many petrochemicals and polymers.
One major medical product is ethylene oxide (C2H4O) used to sterilize medical equipment to kill bacteria and other pathogens.
A major safety concern, however, is that ethylene oxide (EtO), is an oxide of an already unstable ethylene compound. It is extremely explosive, flammable, and dangerous to use raising big safety issues for this reason alone.
Add to it that EtO is a potent human carcinogen in adults and children, and we have a toxin that needs a safer alternative in its medical applications.
The fact is that at room temperature, EtO is a flammable, carcinogenic, mutagenic (DNA altering), irritating, and anaesthetic gas. It’s known to be extremely hazardous to handle, store, and use for these reasons.
A connection to West Chicago
After speaking with Sierra Club members in West Chicago in September, Jane Williams (Sierra Club volunteer and National Clean Air Team chair) and I talked about EtO use in sterilizers in their communities and some EtO manufacturing plants as well.
One EtO data point shared with me by a West Chicago Sierra Club member is that an estimated 80 million tons of EtO annually are released into the urban air sheds due to its extensive use in hospitals and medical clinics.
This EtO data point was presented by an industry representative speaking at a city council meeting where he was discussing safer chemical alternatives to EtO.
Last month, EPA’s chief, Andrew Wheeler, was testifying before Congress. U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski asked Wheeler about the EPA’s EtO IRIS rule on September 19 during a House Space, Science, and Technology Committee hearing. Rep. Lipinski grilled Andrew Wheeler with questions on EtO air pollution events in his Willowbrook district.
Wheeler indicated that EPA is still using the outdated 2016 IRIS risk factor. That is 3,500 times stronger than what the Texas state agency (TCEQ) recently proposed by its Toxicology Division.
What is the link between EPA’s Science Advisory Board and the TCEQ?
A concern here in Texas and nationally is that Michael Honeycutt is head of the TCEQ’s Toxicology Division and who was appointed as EPA’s Science Advisory Board chair in 2018 by disgraced EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, putting Honeycutt in a dangerous position for a pro-industry toxicologist. (We prevented his appointment in 2016 to EPA after he had sent 100 emails to industry contacts in polluters like ExxonMobil and others asking for their support.)
While Honeycutt’s name was not listed on the TCEQ Toxicology Div.’s June 2019 proposal to greatly weaken TCEQ’s Effects Screening Level on EtO pollution from petrochemical plants, we found his name was inside many TCEQ emails and documents obtained during a Public Information Act response in July (with legal help of EarthJustice attorneys Emma Cheuse and Katherine Riley).
As it turns out, Honeycutt was extensively (and not surprisingly) involved in TCEQ’s EtO proposal after pro-industry toxicologists, who work with an industry-funded consulting group named Exponent, made presentations to the TCEQ in 2018.
The Exponent powerpoint that experts made was on behalf of the American Chemistry Council, the major lobbying arm of the U.S. chemical industry.
On July 15, 2019, as EPA SAB chair, Honeycutt sent an official letter (136 pp.) to EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler on Consultation on Updating EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen and Non-Cancer Risk Assessment. Ethylene oxide falls under this consultation and several SAB members and scientists made comments about this consultation process and specific carcinogens. Honeycutt included comments from various SAB scientists and includes his own comments with several on ethylene oxide. Honeycutt’s EtO comments reflect the same TCEQ position on EtO as stated in its proposed EtO weakening rule on June 28, 2019.
Alternative strategies on reducing EtO
After her West Chicago communications, Williams indicated that West Chicago Sierra Club members agreed to contact Chicago leaders of Healthcare Without Harm (HCWH).
After all, HCWH, with support from Sierra Club and others, led a highly successful national effort in the 1990s to get hospitals to move away from medical waste incinerators releasing mercury, hydrochloric acid, and dioxins and switching to safer sterilization using far cheaper autoclaves and greatly reducing pathological red bag waste through waste separation.
Williams reported that local communities could work with their hospitals to pass resolutions saying that by a date certain they will not send their waste to sterilizer facilities using EtO that ends up polluting these neighborhoods and communities.
She added that the FDA has already approved two safer alternatives from what she can discern: Noxaline and hydrogen peroxide, but apparently Noxaline emits lots of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and other environmental groups have raised concerns about it.
Speaking as a chemist, hydrogen peroxide is interesting with a molecular formula of H2O2 meaning it has no carbon and contains only hydrogen and oxygen that easily breaks down into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2).
Plus it’s not nearly as explosive as EtO.
We need a strategy to reduce EtO medical use in the U.S. and support efforts to adopt safer chemical alternatives. As we explore alternatives, another question arises, what impact would such a switch potentially have on ethane and ethylene demand in the U.S.? It is unknown, but needs to be addressed.
Stay tuned to this blog and our newsletter for more updates!