Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has discreetly suggested to uphold an air pollution permit target cancer-risk level that is deemed insufficient by scientists and public health officials to safeguard public health. This is particularly concerning for communities, such as those located east of Houston, which face multiple sources of industrial emissions simultaneously.
The move comes after a state commission on accountability last year found “a concerning degree of general public distrust and confusion focused on TCEQ,” and the Texas Legislature adopted directives this year instructing the TCEQ to transparently review and approve “foundational policy decisions” that had never been publicly approved, including “the acceptable level of health-based risk” used in pollution permitting.
In response, TCEQ proposed, without public hearings or additional study, to formalize its existing target cancer risk level of 1 in 100,000, meaning that only one excess case of cancer among 100,000 similarly exposed people would result from each individual pollutant from each individually permitted site.
According to Richard Richter, a spokesperson for TCEQ, the agency has been utilizing this risk level since 2006. Richter explains that TCEQ’s target is deemed reasonable and safeguards human health from a regulatory standpoint. He further asserts that it only plays a negligible role in an individual’s overall lifetime cancer risk.
However, upon examining each site and chemical individually, scientists and public health officials argue that the assessment method significantly underestimates the real dangers encountered by communities located near industrial complexes. These complexes include large clusters of emitting refineries and chemical plants that are scattered across the Texas coast.
“TCEQ should be proactive and change their cancer risk to protect individuals living in high risk communities,” wrote Latrice Babin, executive director of Harris County Pollution Control Services, in official comments. She asked for a target risk level of one in 1 million.
“TCEQ is scrambling to adopt work from nearly 20 years ago with no analysis,” wrote a coalition of Texas environmental groups.
The City of Houston, the nation’s fourth largest city and home to its largest petrochemical complex, has also asked the TCEQ to tighten standards. Bill Kelly, Houston’s director of government relations, said TCEQ should “absolutely” lower its target cancer risk level.
Richter did not respond to a request for interviews with TCEQ’s politically appointed leadership, but said that the agency, to satisfy the Legislature’s directives on public participation, sent its proposal for a target risk rate, along with instructions on filing comments, to more than 3,300 email addresses on its toxicology listserv, which goes to subscribers from both industry and the general public. The proposal also appeared Sept. 1 on page 182 of the Texas Register, a weekly journal of state agency rulemaking.
In response, the TCEQ received more than 200 official comments asking the agency to lower its target risk level to one in 1 million. Just one response came in support of its proposed risk level: the Texas Chemical Council, a chemical industry lobbying group, wrote, “the proposed level is protective of public health.”
Target Risk Levels
In the state of Texas, which is home to the nation’s oil, gas, and petrochemical industry, the volumes of carcinogenic emissions that industrial operators are permitted to release are determined based on the target risk level.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets the upper limit of cancer risk level from permitted air pollution at 1 in 10,000, and sets a target level at 1 in 1 million. Richter called the TCEQ’s target rate the “logarithmic center” of that range, and said it allows ample space for corrective action before permitted pollution sources exceed the EPA’s upper limit for cancer risk.
He said the agency has used its target risk level since 2006 when it formalized its guidelines for toxicity standards. Those guidelines attribute the figure to standards set by California in 1986. Those guidelines also produced a broad loosening of air pollution health standards in Texas, according to a 2014 investigation by Inside Climate News and the Center for Public Integrity.
Richter pointed to a 2010 survey of state air permitting policy by Michigan’s environmental regulator, which found that 20 U.S. states didn’t evaluate cancer-causing “air toxics” when permitting new pollution sources. Of the 28 that did, 14 states used target risk levels to set limits. Eight used 1 in 1 million, including California. Just one, Louisiana, used the upper end —1 in 10,000.
Texas and Minnesota both used a ratio of 1 in 100,000, whereas Georgia and Rhode Island utilized a ratio of 1 in 1 million for certain toxins and a ratio of 1 in 100,000 for others.
Cumulative Impacts of Pollution
The mentioned number does not depict the overall cancer risk for entire states. Instead, it represents the cancer risk associated with each specific pollutant emitted by individually permitted facilities. According to scientists, when multiple facilities release chemicals over extensive industrial areas, these seemingly insignificant contributions can accumulate or even amplify through interactions.
Director of the Environmental Research and Translation for Health Center at the University of California San Francisco, Tracey Woodruff, pointed out that the true risk is frequently underestimated by these figures.
Scientists argue that stricter standards are necessary to consider the combined effects of pollution, which tend to disproportionately affect marginalized communities and individuals who are more vulnerable.
Jill Johnston, director of the Environmental Justice Research Lab at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, stated that the conventional approach used to focus on examining pollutants and emissions sources individually. However, she emphasized that in reality, people are not exposed to just one pollutant at a time. There has been a noticeable change in the direction of cumulative risk characterization.
The science isn’t new, said Wilma Subra, an environmental consultant in Louisiana who studied cumulative impacts of air pollution for the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council in the early 1990s. But it has been difficult to incorporate into air permitting.
She stated that at times, there are numerous chemicals present in the air, ranging from 20 to even 40 or more. Among these chemicals, some adhere to certain standards while others do not. The concerning aspect is that these chemicals coexist and interact beyond the boundary, and yet, statements are made solely based on individual standards without considering their combined effects.
TCEQ guidelines say the agency assesses cumulative risks from pollution in accordance with state and federal law. But outside experts say that’s not always what happens.
According to an anonymous air permitting consultant who previously worked for the TCEQ, the current approach to air toxics involves assessing one air contaminant at one site. This means that each air contaminant is evaluated individually, without considering other contaminants or nearby refineries that may have a significant concentration of benzene liquids. This limited perspective may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the situation.
Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a clinician scientist at the British Columbia Children’s Hospital and a professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, states that the presence of various pollutants in a combination can significantly amplify toxicity levels.
According to Lanphear, the impact has been demonstrated through research on tobacco, which is a relatively straightforward subject to study. Smoking tobacco can amplify the likelihood of developing lung cancer by 10 times, whereas exposure to arsenic can double the risk. However, the simultaneous occurrence of smoking and arsenic exposure has been proven to elevate the risk by 25 times.
He stated that the presence of two toxic pollutants poses a significant multiplicative risk as they intensify each other’s effects. This has substantial implications, especially in a location like Houston with numerous chemical plants.
According to him, measuring individuals’ exposure and comparing it with non-smokers is a simple task when it comes to tobacco users. However, when it comes to the numerous industrial air pollutants, determining exposure and its effects becomes much more complex. Moreover, studying the combinations of these pollutants adds an additional layer of difficulty.
He expressed that although it is difficult, the regulatory agencies should be undertaking the task.
A Tradeoff of Costs
Scientists suggest that agencies can adjust their target levels to account for cumulative effects, as modeling cumulative impacts for every new permit may not be feasible. This is because cumulative effects often lead to an increased overall cancer risk caused by emissions.
The EPA’s risk assessment framework for air toxics permitting calls for “an ample margin of safety to protect public health.”
David Ozonoff, chair emeritus for environmental health at Boston University, stated that his preference lies in a target risk of one in a million.
According to Ozonoff, when the overall impact of pollution is not well comprehended, it is advisable to lean towards caution, as it aligns better with the principles of public health. However, this approach imposes an extra financial burden on businesses that are required to obtain air pollution permits in order to carry out their operations.
Ozonoff stated that additional protection may result in reduced profits or job losses, whereas reducing protection comes at the expense of lives and suffering. Typically, the costs and benefits are distributed among different groups of people, with one group reaping the advantages and another bearing the burdens.
In Texas, public health advocates call the costs a reasonable burden to place on big industry, especially with major operators like ExxonMobil, which runs one the nation’s largest pollution sources east of Houston and posted a record $56 billion profit last year.
Jen Powis, the managing attorney for Earthjustice’s gulf regional office in Houston, questioned the double standard of throwing trash over fencelines. She highlighted the fact that while individuals are not allowed to do so, industries with their financial resources can easily invest in pollution control equipment to minimize their environmental impact.
The Texas environmental groups stated in their comments that the TCEQ had failed to present any evidence suggesting that implementing a lower target risk level would be financially burdensome for applicants in various air permitting programs.
The Texas Chemical Council, in its comments, said it “commends the TCEQ for its consideration of risk/benefit tradeoffs in establishing its [target risk levels] which make levels achievable.”
‘A Concerning Degree of General Public Distrust’
The standard is up for discussion in Texas because Texas Sunset Commission, which reviews each state agency every 12 years, found in its 2022 report on TCEQ “a concerning degree of general public distrust and confusion focused on TCEQ and its ability to effectively regulate in the public interest.”
Distrust, the report said, stemmed from a lack of transparency and of opportunities for public input. Many of TCEQ’s core policies, like its target cancer risk level tucked into its 347-page toxicology guidelines, are encoded in lengthy scientific documents that had never been publicly approved.
According to the report, it is essential to convert this scientific data into regulatory standards. The report emphasizes that determining the permissible level of exposure and its impact on the public is a policy choice that governs the construction of facilities, the technology they must utilize, and the necessary safety monitoring measures.
This year, the Legislature passed a directive urging TCEQ to adopt these policies publicly and actively, while also ensuring that the public has opportunities to provide their comments on the standards.
Carolyn Stone, a resident of Channelview, a community advocate residing near Houston’s industrial sector, was unaware of the proposed cancer risk level until late September. It was only when local environmental groups started spreading awareness that she became informed. EPA screening tools indicate that her area in Channelview ranks at the 94th percentile for cancer risk from air pollution nationwide.
According to Stone, a former office worker who now heads the Channelview Health and Improvement Coalition, he has not received any notification from TCEQ. Given that our community ranks so high in terms of importance, one would expect us to be among the first to be informed.
She wasn’t surprised by the omission, considering her residency in Channelview since 1981. The consistent frustration she experienced with environmental regulators ultimately led her to establish her group in 2019.
Stone has consistently raised concerns about the detrimental impact of pollution from neighboring facilities on the health of local residents during public meetings with the TCEQ. Moreover, she has actively advocated for the inclusion of improved pollution control technology as a mandatory requirement in applications for new pollution permits in the vicinity.
“They essentially claim that the companies conducted their own tests and concluded that their actions would not exceed the limits,” she expressed. “My experiences with TCEQ have been consistently negative. I am extremely disappointed in their performance.”
Alejandra Martinez of The Texas Tribune contributed to this report.
Disclosure: Exxon Mobil Corporation has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
