Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

US lead pipe replacements stoke concerns about plastic and environmental injustice

News Feed
Monday, June 5, 2023

Roughly 9.2 million lead pipes deliver drinking water to homes, schools and other buildings in the U.S., according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate released last month. The Biden administration has announced its intention to replace all lead service lines within 10 years; and in 2021, Congress made $15 billion available for lead service line replacement through the bipartisan infrastructure law that passed last year. The EPA estimates the average cost to replace a lead service line is $4,700, putting the total need at $43 billion. Scientists and drinking-water advocates say this fund is only a starting-point. A 2020 EPA analysis failed to consider many health outcomes from lead exposure, causing some experts to fear there’s a lack of willingness at the agency to address the problem. This could change, with new regulations on lead exposure expected from the EPA in September 2023. Advocates say upcoming rules need to include a mandate and funding for utilities to fully replace lead service lines so everyone can benefit from the program, including low-income customers. Complicating lead pipe replacement are alternatives that may carry health risks of their own. A new report from Beyond Plastics, the Plastic Pollution Coalition and Environmental Health Sciences highlights a growing body of research that has found toxic chemicals in PVC and CPVC pipes — commonly used to replace lead lines — that have the potential to leach into drinking water. Health advocates say that in replacing lead lines, cities and states need to select safe materials to avoid a regrettable substitution, and many say copper is the best option. (Environmental Health Sciences publishes Environmental Health News, which is editorially independent.) The EPA has chosen not to regulate plastic pipes or look into their potential health effects, Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and former EPA regional administrator, told Environmental Health News (EHN). “We’ve had about a half a dozen meetings with EPA, and every office we meet with points to another office,” she said, “It’s a lot of buck passing.” Lack of federal motivation on lead replacementLead was a common material for service lines, the pipes that connect a building to a water main, until Congress banned them in 1986 due to health risks. There is no safe level of lead exposure, the EPA says. In children, lead affects growth, behavior, IQ and more. Lead can impact pregnancies, causing early births and damage to a baby’s brain, kidneys and nervous system. In adults, lead can impact cardiovascular health, kidney function and fertility. Research has found that minority and low-income households are more likely to face lead exposure, often because their homes were built during the decades when lead service lines were most prevalent.The EPA enforces the Lead and Copper Rule, which requires utilities to address contamination when more than 10% of customer taps have high levels of lead or copper. The Trump administration revised the rule, adding new testing requirements and protocols intended to require more action from utilities to reduce lead exposure. When the agency released their economic analysis of the rule revisions, “I was appalled,” Ronnie Levin, instructor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and former EPA senior scientist, told EHN. The EPA recognizes eight health outcomes caused by lead, and eight that are likely caused by lead. “They only monetized one,” Levin said. Related: Check out Beyond Plastics' "The Perils of PVC Plastic Pipes" reportThat means they didn’t quantify many health outcomes the rule revisions would improve by lowering lead exposure. With the single health outcome monetized, the EPA analysis found roughly $160 to $330 million in costs from the revisions, and $230 to $800 million in benefits. “EPA considered both the quantifiable and the nonquantifiable health risk reduction benefits in promulgating the final Lead and Copper Rule…EPA exercised discretion to determine the approaches used to quantify benefits,” a spokesperson for the EPA told EHN in an email. Levin ran the numbers herself, including as many EPA acknowledged health outcomes from lead as she could. In a non-peer-reviewed preprint study, she and a coauthor estimate $9 billion in health benefits and an additional $2 to $8 billion in savings on plumbing materials thanks to corrosion control required by the Lead and Copper Rule revisions. The EPA’s underestimation of benefits demonstrates a lack of investment to address lead in drinking water, Levin said. “EPA, when it really wants to do something, loads on all the benefits it can marshal.” She’s concerned the incomplete health benefits analysis means the agency isn’t committed to solving this problem. Environmental injustice and lead replacementUnder the Biden administration, the Lead and Copper Rule will see another set of changes, which the EPA plans to announce in September 2023. The agency told an appeals court in December 2022 that it expects to require replacement of all lead service lines in that rulemaking. Some utilities are ahead of the curve, and have used funds from last year’s infrastructure act and other sources to jump start lead service line replacement. “But until we actually get a requirement that those lead pipes are pulled out, we’re concerned that a lot of communities are just going to shrug their shoulders,” Erik Olson, attorney and senior strategic director of the NRDC’s Health and Food, People & Communities Program, told EHN. To access state funds, utilities have to hire consulting firms to put together proposals for lead service line replacement, Olson explained. Low-income communities with fewer resources might not have the capacity to access the programs available now, but could be motivated with better funding and a mandate to replace service lines. Currently, the EPA is rolling out a technical assistance program in four states — Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to help disadvantaged communities access funds. “We’re hoping that EPA will require the full replacement and at the expense of the utility, because otherwise we’re just not going to see a solution to this problem and it really will be an environmental injustice,” Olson said. When lead service lines are replaced by utilities, the Lead and Copper Rule requires them to address the portion they own. But that ownership is up for debate: many utilities say the property owner owns part of the service line, and that the utility is only responsible for a portion of it. Olson said utilities have been unable to provide documentation to back up this claim when asked by NRDC. Still some cities, including Washington D.C., have required customers to pay for a portion of a lead service line replacement, generally costing a few thousand dollars. A study of this program in Washington D.C. found that low-income neighborhoods were far less likely to receive full service line replacements. Neighborhoods with more Black residents were also less likely to receive full replacements. Instead, in many places the utility performed partial replacements, leaving some lead pipe intact. These partial replacements “may be worse than doing nothing,” the study said. The partial replacement process can disturb pipe coatings and speed up corrosion, leading to higher lead contamination of water. For example, research on partial lead service line replacements in Halifax, Canada,, found that a partial replacement more than doubled lead release in the short term, and had no beneficial effects on lead contamination after six months. In 2019, Washington D.C.’s council changed their program to better fund full replacements and address past partial replacements. “EPA strongly discourages water systems from conducting partial lead service line replacement,” said the EPA spokesperson. PVC piping health impactsThe material that goes in to replace lead pipes can also create health concerns. Common replacements for lead service lines include pipes made from copper and plastics such as high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). Plastic pipes tend to be the cheapest option, but a report last month highlights serious health risks from plastic PVC and CPVC pipes. Scientists have identified 59 chemicals that can leach from PVC pipes, but there’s a dearth of research on exactly what concentrations could be found in home tap water and what health risks they pose. The report shows that some toxics leach from plastic pipes, including vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen, and phthalates and organotins, endocrine-disruptors that impact the body’s hormone system. Plastic pipes, particularly PVC and CPVC, could represent a regrettable substitution for lead pipes, said Enck in a press conference about the report. “EPA does not have requirements for plumbing materials beyond the requirements for lead-free,” Senior Communications Advisor for EPA, Dominique Joseph, told EHN in an email. “EPA has supported the development of independent, third-party testing standards for plumbing materials under NSF/ANSI 61, which has been incorporated into many state and local plumbing codes.” The report raises concerns about the rigor of the NSF/ANSI 61 standard, which was developed by NSF International, an industry-funded organization. Beyond concerns for chemical leaching into drinking water, “Plastic pipes are an environmental justice issue,” Enck said. The vinyl chloride that makes the pipes is largely produced in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia, where surrounding communities face exposure to the carcinogen. Vinyl chloride was the principal chemical released in the February train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The train was also carrying PVC pellets on their way to a PVC pipe manufacturer, said Mike Schade, director of Mind the Store at Toxic-Free Future, at a press conference for the report. Copper can also corrode from pipes and cause health issues in high concentrations, but this is less common than high lead levels, and can be managed with corrosion control, said NRDC’s Olson. Recycled copper is the best choice for service lines to protect public health, the report concludes.Cities take action on lead pipesSome cities have made drinking water exposures a priority, and set an example for others to follow, Olson said. He points to Newark, New Jersey, which replaced more than 20,000 lead service lines with copper at no expense to property owners within a few years.Somerville, Massachusetts, is replacing all of its non-copper service lines with copper, prioritizing lead pipe removals first. “Copper tubing is the preferred water service material as it is sturdier and has a longer life span,” Karla Cuarezma, project manager for Somerville, said in an email to EHN. Troy, New York, also plans to replace lead pipes with copper. This pipe material preference has been in the city’s code for many decades, and they’re planning to stick with it, Chris Wheland, Troy’s superintendent of public utilities, told EHN. He added that at high water pressures plastic pipes don’t last as long. After facing criticisms for a slow start to the lead service line replacement program, Troy is putting a $500,000 fund to work to identify lead service line locations and begin some replacements. But Wheland said this is only a start, Troy will need $30 million to finish the job and replace all of its lead service lines. “We also have many other programs that we have to fund,” he said, “I still have to maintain the water plant, I still have to maintain pipes to the water plant and out of the water plant, because if I don’t have a water plant to give you water, there’s no sense in worrying about the lead pipe.”

Roughly 9.2 million lead pipes deliver drinking water to homes, schools and other buildings in the U.S., according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate released last month. The Biden administration has announced its intention to replace all lead service lines within 10 years; and in 2021, Congress made $15 billion available for lead service line replacement through the bipartisan infrastructure law that passed last year. The EPA estimates the average cost to replace a lead service line is $4,700, putting the total need at $43 billion. Scientists and drinking-water advocates say this fund is only a starting-point. A 2020 EPA analysis failed to consider many health outcomes from lead exposure, causing some experts to fear there’s a lack of willingness at the agency to address the problem. This could change, with new regulations on lead exposure expected from the EPA in September 2023. Advocates say upcoming rules need to include a mandate and funding for utilities to fully replace lead service lines so everyone can benefit from the program, including low-income customers. Complicating lead pipe replacement are alternatives that may carry health risks of their own. A new report from Beyond Plastics, the Plastic Pollution Coalition and Environmental Health Sciences highlights a growing body of research that has found toxic chemicals in PVC and CPVC pipes — commonly used to replace lead lines — that have the potential to leach into drinking water. Health advocates say that in replacing lead lines, cities and states need to select safe materials to avoid a regrettable substitution, and many say copper is the best option. (Environmental Health Sciences publishes Environmental Health News, which is editorially independent.) The EPA has chosen not to regulate plastic pipes or look into their potential health effects, Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and former EPA regional administrator, told Environmental Health News (EHN). “We’ve had about a half a dozen meetings with EPA, and every office we meet with points to another office,” she said, “It’s a lot of buck passing.” Lack of federal motivation on lead replacementLead was a common material for service lines, the pipes that connect a building to a water main, until Congress banned them in 1986 due to health risks. There is no safe level of lead exposure, the EPA says. In children, lead affects growth, behavior, IQ and more. Lead can impact pregnancies, causing early births and damage to a baby’s brain, kidneys and nervous system. In adults, lead can impact cardiovascular health, kidney function and fertility. Research has found that minority and low-income households are more likely to face lead exposure, often because their homes were built during the decades when lead service lines were most prevalent.The EPA enforces the Lead and Copper Rule, which requires utilities to address contamination when more than 10% of customer taps have high levels of lead or copper. The Trump administration revised the rule, adding new testing requirements and protocols intended to require more action from utilities to reduce lead exposure. When the agency released their economic analysis of the rule revisions, “I was appalled,” Ronnie Levin, instructor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and former EPA senior scientist, told EHN. The EPA recognizes eight health outcomes caused by lead, and eight that are likely caused by lead. “They only monetized one,” Levin said. Related: Check out Beyond Plastics' "The Perils of PVC Plastic Pipes" reportThat means they didn’t quantify many health outcomes the rule revisions would improve by lowering lead exposure. With the single health outcome monetized, the EPA analysis found roughly $160 to $330 million in costs from the revisions, and $230 to $800 million in benefits. “EPA considered both the quantifiable and the nonquantifiable health risk reduction benefits in promulgating the final Lead and Copper Rule…EPA exercised discretion to determine the approaches used to quantify benefits,” a spokesperson for the EPA told EHN in an email. Levin ran the numbers herself, including as many EPA acknowledged health outcomes from lead as she could. In a non-peer-reviewed preprint study, she and a coauthor estimate $9 billion in health benefits and an additional $2 to $8 billion in savings on plumbing materials thanks to corrosion control required by the Lead and Copper Rule revisions. The EPA’s underestimation of benefits demonstrates a lack of investment to address lead in drinking water, Levin said. “EPA, when it really wants to do something, loads on all the benefits it can marshal.” She’s concerned the incomplete health benefits analysis means the agency isn’t committed to solving this problem. Environmental injustice and lead replacementUnder the Biden administration, the Lead and Copper Rule will see another set of changes, which the EPA plans to announce in September 2023. The agency told an appeals court in December 2022 that it expects to require replacement of all lead service lines in that rulemaking. Some utilities are ahead of the curve, and have used funds from last year’s infrastructure act and other sources to jump start lead service line replacement. “But until we actually get a requirement that those lead pipes are pulled out, we’re concerned that a lot of communities are just going to shrug their shoulders,” Erik Olson, attorney and senior strategic director of the NRDC’s Health and Food, People & Communities Program, told EHN. To access state funds, utilities have to hire consulting firms to put together proposals for lead service line replacement, Olson explained. Low-income communities with fewer resources might not have the capacity to access the programs available now, but could be motivated with better funding and a mandate to replace service lines. Currently, the EPA is rolling out a technical assistance program in four states — Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to help disadvantaged communities access funds. “We’re hoping that EPA will require the full replacement and at the expense of the utility, because otherwise we’re just not going to see a solution to this problem and it really will be an environmental injustice,” Olson said. When lead service lines are replaced by utilities, the Lead and Copper Rule requires them to address the portion they own. But that ownership is up for debate: many utilities say the property owner owns part of the service line, and that the utility is only responsible for a portion of it. Olson said utilities have been unable to provide documentation to back up this claim when asked by NRDC. Still some cities, including Washington D.C., have required customers to pay for a portion of a lead service line replacement, generally costing a few thousand dollars. A study of this program in Washington D.C. found that low-income neighborhoods were far less likely to receive full service line replacements. Neighborhoods with more Black residents were also less likely to receive full replacements. Instead, in many places the utility performed partial replacements, leaving some lead pipe intact. These partial replacements “may be worse than doing nothing,” the study said. The partial replacement process can disturb pipe coatings and speed up corrosion, leading to higher lead contamination of water. For example, research on partial lead service line replacements in Halifax, Canada,, found that a partial replacement more than doubled lead release in the short term, and had no beneficial effects on lead contamination after six months. In 2019, Washington D.C.’s council changed their program to better fund full replacements and address past partial replacements. “EPA strongly discourages water systems from conducting partial lead service line replacement,” said the EPA spokesperson. PVC piping health impactsThe material that goes in to replace lead pipes can also create health concerns. Common replacements for lead service lines include pipes made from copper and plastics such as high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). Plastic pipes tend to be the cheapest option, but a report last month highlights serious health risks from plastic PVC and CPVC pipes. Scientists have identified 59 chemicals that can leach from PVC pipes, but there’s a dearth of research on exactly what concentrations could be found in home tap water and what health risks they pose. The report shows that some toxics leach from plastic pipes, including vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen, and phthalates and organotins, endocrine-disruptors that impact the body’s hormone system. Plastic pipes, particularly PVC and CPVC, could represent a regrettable substitution for lead pipes, said Enck in a press conference about the report. “EPA does not have requirements for plumbing materials beyond the requirements for lead-free,” Senior Communications Advisor for EPA, Dominique Joseph, told EHN in an email. “EPA has supported the development of independent, third-party testing standards for plumbing materials under NSF/ANSI 61, which has been incorporated into many state and local plumbing codes.” The report raises concerns about the rigor of the NSF/ANSI 61 standard, which was developed by NSF International, an industry-funded organization. Beyond concerns for chemical leaching into drinking water, “Plastic pipes are an environmental justice issue,” Enck said. The vinyl chloride that makes the pipes is largely produced in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia, where surrounding communities face exposure to the carcinogen. Vinyl chloride was the principal chemical released in the February train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The train was also carrying PVC pellets on their way to a PVC pipe manufacturer, said Mike Schade, director of Mind the Store at Toxic-Free Future, at a press conference for the report. Copper can also corrode from pipes and cause health issues in high concentrations, but this is less common than high lead levels, and can be managed with corrosion control, said NRDC’s Olson. Recycled copper is the best choice for service lines to protect public health, the report concludes.Cities take action on lead pipesSome cities have made drinking water exposures a priority, and set an example for others to follow, Olson said. He points to Newark, New Jersey, which replaced more than 20,000 lead service lines with copper at no expense to property owners within a few years.Somerville, Massachusetts, is replacing all of its non-copper service lines with copper, prioritizing lead pipe removals first. “Copper tubing is the preferred water service material as it is sturdier and has a longer life span,” Karla Cuarezma, project manager for Somerville, said in an email to EHN. Troy, New York, also plans to replace lead pipes with copper. This pipe material preference has been in the city’s code for many decades, and they’re planning to stick with it, Chris Wheland, Troy’s superintendent of public utilities, told EHN. He added that at high water pressures plastic pipes don’t last as long. After facing criticisms for a slow start to the lead service line replacement program, Troy is putting a $500,000 fund to work to identify lead service line locations and begin some replacements. But Wheland said this is only a start, Troy will need $30 million to finish the job and replace all of its lead service lines. “We also have many other programs that we have to fund,” he said, “I still have to maintain the water plant, I still have to maintain pipes to the water plant and out of the water plant, because if I don’t have a water plant to give you water, there’s no sense in worrying about the lead pipe.”



Roughly 9.2 million lead pipes deliver drinking water to homes, schools and other buildings in the U.S., according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate released last month.


The Biden administration has announced its intention to replace all lead service lines within 10 years; and in 2021, Congress made $15 billion available for lead service line replacement through the bipartisan infrastructure law that passed last year. The EPA estimates the average cost to replace a lead service line is $4,700, putting the total need at $43 billion.

Scientists and drinking-water advocates say this fund is only a starting-point. A 2020 EPA analysis failed to consider many health outcomes from lead exposure, causing some experts to fear there’s a lack of willingness at the agency to address the problem. This could change, with new regulations on lead exposure expected from the EPA in September 2023. Advocates say upcoming rules need to include a mandate and funding for utilities to fully replace lead service lines so everyone can benefit from the program, including low-income customers.

Complicating lead pipe replacement are alternatives that may carry health risks of their own. A new report from Beyond Plastics, the Plastic Pollution Coalition and Environmental Health Sciences highlights a growing body of research that has found toxic chemicals in PVC and CPVC pipes — commonly used to replace lead lines — that have the potential to leach into drinking water. Health advocates say that in replacing lead lines, cities and states need to select safe materials to avoid a regrettable substitution, and many say copper is the best option. (Environmental Health Sciences publishes Environmental Health News, which is editorially independent.)

The EPA has chosen not to regulate plastic pipes or look into their potential health effects, Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics and former EPA regional administrator, told Environmental Health News (EHN).

“We’ve had about a half a dozen meetings with EPA, and every office we meet with points to another office,” she said, “It’s a lot of buck passing.”

Lack of federal motivation on lead replacement


lead in water

Lead was a common material for service lines, the pipes that connect a building to a water main, until Congress banned them in 1986 due to health risks. There is no safe level of lead exposure, the EPA says. In children, lead affects growth, behavior, IQ and more. Lead can impact pregnancies, causing early births and damage to a baby’s brain, kidneys and nervous system. In adults, lead can impact cardiovascular health, kidney function and fertility. Research has found that minority and low-income households are more likely to face lead exposure, often because their homes were built during the decades when lead service lines were most prevalent.

The EPA enforces the Lead and Copper Rule, which requires utilities to address contamination when more than 10% of customer taps have high levels of lead or copper. The Trump administration revised the rule, adding new testing requirements and protocols intended to require more action from utilities to reduce lead exposure.

When the agency released their economic analysis of the rule revisions, “I was appalled,” Ronnie Levin, instructor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and former EPA senior scientist, told EHN. The EPA recognizes eight health outcomes caused by lead, and eight that are likely caused by lead. “They only monetized one,” Levin said.

Related: Check out Beyond Plastics' "The Perils of PVC Plastic Pipes" report

That means they didn’t quantify many health outcomes the rule revisions would improve by lowering lead exposure. With the single health outcome monetized, the EPA analysis found roughly $160 to $330 million in costs from the revisions, and $230 to $800 million in benefits.

“EPA considered both the quantifiable and the nonquantifiable health risk reduction benefits in promulgating the final Lead and Copper Rule…EPA exercised discretion to determine the approaches used to quantify benefits,” a spokesperson for the EPA told EHN in an email.

Levin ran the numbers herself, including as many EPA acknowledged health outcomes from lead as she could. In a non-peer-reviewed preprint study, she and a coauthor estimate $9 billion in health benefits and an additional $2 to $8 billion in savings on plumbing materials thanks to corrosion control required by the Lead and Copper Rule revisions.

The EPA’s underestimation of benefits demonstrates a lack of investment to address lead in drinking water, Levin said. “EPA, when it really wants to do something, loads on all the benefits it can marshal.” She’s concerned the incomplete health benefits analysis means the agency isn’t committed to solving this problem.

Environmental injustice and lead replacement


children environmental justice

Under the Biden administration, the Lead and Copper Rule will see another set of changes, which the EPA plans to announce in September 2023. The agency told an appeals court in December 2022 that it expects to require replacement of all lead service lines in that rulemaking.

Some utilities are ahead of the curve, and have used funds from last year’s infrastructure act and other sources to jump start lead service line replacement. “But until we actually get a requirement that those lead pipes are pulled out, we’re concerned that a lot of communities are just going to shrug their shoulders,” Erik Olson, attorney and senior strategic director of the NRDC’s Health and Food, People & Communities Program, told EHN.

To access state funds, utilities have to hire consulting firms to put together proposals for lead service line replacement, Olson explained. Low-income communities with fewer resources might not have the capacity to access the programs available now, but could be motivated with better funding and a mandate to replace service lines. Currently, the EPA is rolling out a technical assistance program in four states — Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to help disadvantaged communities access funds.

“We’re hoping that EPA will require the full replacement and at the expense of the utility, because otherwise we’re just not going to see a solution to this problem and it really will be an environmental injustice,” Olson said.

When lead service lines are replaced by utilities, the Lead and Copper Rule requires them to address the portion they own. But that ownership is up for debate: many utilities say the property owner owns part of the service line, and that the utility is only responsible for a portion of it. Olson said utilities have been unable to provide documentation to back up this claim when asked by NRDC.

Still some cities, including Washington D.C., have required customers to pay for a portion of a lead service line replacement, generally costing a few thousand dollars.

A study of this program in Washington D.C. found that low-income neighborhoods were far less likely to receive full service line replacements. Neighborhoods with more Black residents were also less likely to receive full replacements. Instead, in many places the utility performed partial replacements, leaving some lead pipe intact.

These partial replacements “may be worse than doing nothing,” the study said. The partial replacement process can disturb pipe coatings and speed up corrosion, leading to higher lead contamination of water. For example, research on partial lead service line replacements in Halifax, Canada,, found that a partial replacement more than doubled lead release in the short term, and had no beneficial effects on lead contamination after six months. In 2019, Washington D.C.’s council changed their program to better fund full replacements and address past partial replacements.

“EPA strongly discourages water systems from conducting partial lead service line replacement,” said the EPA spokesperson.

PVC piping health impacts


The material that goes in to replace lead pipes can also create health concerns. Common replacements for lead service lines include pipes made from copper and plastics such as high-density polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). Plastic pipes tend to be the cheapest option, but a report last month highlights serious health risks from plastic PVC and CPVC pipes. Scientists have identified 59 chemicals that can leach from PVC pipes, but there’s a dearth of research on exactly what concentrations could be found in home tap water and what health risks they pose. The report shows that some toxics leach from plastic pipes, including vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen, and phthalates and organotins, endocrine-disruptors that impact the body’s hormone system.

Plastic pipes, particularly PVC and CPVC, could represent a regrettable substitution for lead pipes, said Enck in a press conference about the report.

“EPA does not have requirements for plumbing materials beyond the requirements for lead-free,” Senior Communications Advisor for EPA, Dominique Joseph, told EHN in an email. “EPA has supported the development of independent, third-party testing standards for plumbing materials under NSF/ANSI 61, which has been incorporated into many state and local plumbing codes.”

The report raises concerns about the rigor of the NSF/ANSI 61 standard, which was developed by NSF International, an industry-funded organization.

Beyond concerns for chemical leaching into drinking water, “Plastic pipes are an environmental justice issue,” Enck said. The vinyl chloride that makes the pipes is largely produced in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia, where surrounding communities face exposure to the carcinogen. Vinyl chloride was the principal chemical released in the February train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. The train was also carrying PVC pellets on their way to a PVC pipe manufacturer, said Mike Schade, director of Mind the Store at Toxic-Free Future, at a press conference for the report.

Copper can also corrode from pipes and cause health issues in high concentrations, but this is less common than high lead levels, and can be managed with corrosion control, said NRDC’s Olson. Recycled copper is the best choice for service lines to protect public health, the report concludes.

Cities take action on lead pipes


PVC pipes health risk

Some cities have made drinking water exposures a priority, and set an example for others to follow, Olson said. He points to Newark, New Jersey, which replaced more than 20,000 lead service lines with copper at no expense to property owners within a few years.

Somerville, Massachusetts, is replacing all of its non-copper service lines with copper, prioritizing lead pipe removals first. “Copper tubing is the preferred water service material as it is sturdier and has a longer life span,” Karla Cuarezma, project manager for Somerville, said in an email to EHN.

Troy, New York, also plans to replace lead pipes with copper. This pipe material preference has been in the city’s code for many decades, and they’re planning to stick with it, Chris Wheland, Troy’s superintendent of public utilities, told EHN. He added that at high water pressures plastic pipes don’t last as long.

After facing criticisms for a slow start to the lead service line replacement program, Troy is putting a $500,000 fund to work to identify lead service line locations and begin some replacements. But Wheland said this is only a start, Troy will need $30 million to finish the job and replace all of its lead service lines.

“We also have many other programs that we have to fund,” he said, “I still have to maintain the water plant, I still have to maintain pipes to the water plant and out of the water plant, because if I don’t have a water plant to give you water, there’s no sense in worrying about the lead pipe.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Baytown plant with troubled track record could receive up to $332 million from federal government to lower emissions

Federal regulators found at least 25 air quality violations at the ExxonMobil Baytown Olefins Plant over the last five years. However, the facility could receive millions in federal funding as part of a national decarbonization initiative.

This Friday, Oct. 13, 2017, photo taken from upper Galveston Bay shows the Exxon Mobil Baytown refinery and chemical plant in Baytown, Texas.A Baytown power plant with a track record of federal air quality violations could get up to $332 million from the U.S. Department of Energy as part of a national decarbonization initiative. On Monday, the U.S. Department of Energy announced $6 billion in funding for 33 decarbonization projects across the country — including six projects specifically in Texas. One of those projects could grant up to $331.9 million to the ExxonMobil Baytown Olefins Plant to “enable the use of hydrogen in place of natural gas” for ethylene production, with the goal of cutting down the plant’s total emissions by more than half. However, environmental advocacy groups say they’re skeptical. Luke Metzger, the executive director of Environment Texas, said the hydrogen that Exxon would use would likely be produced using natural gas, which would add to the plant’s omissions and nullify the benefits of the project. “Ultimately, it could be a wash in terms of the emissions impact and further delaying the transition towards clean, renewable energy,” Metzger said. “This hydrogen scheme, I worry, is not actually going to be a net positive for public health or the environment.” Over the last few years, the Baytown plant has repeatedly violated federal standards. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s website, several “high priority” air quality violations were found during at least 12 separate inspections before May 2022 — a total of 25 violations have been found over the last five years. ExxonMobil operates a multi-facility complex in Baytown comprised of the olefins plant, along with a chemical plant and refinery. In total, the ExxonMobil complex has seen at least 60 federal violations over the last five years and has been penalized at least $442,451 for significant violations, according to the EPA. Additionally, at least four workers were injured in an explosion at the ExxonMobil refinery in 2021, which resulted in a $10 million lawsuit against the company. In 2019, more than 30 people were injured in another explosion at the refinery. Environment Texas was among a trio of environmental nonprofits that sued ExxonMobil back in 2010 for violating the EPA’s Clean Air Act for multiple years. The courts kicked the case around for more than a decade, but ultimately ruled against Exxon in March 2021, hitting the company with more than $14 million in fines — a ruling that Exxon is currently appealing. Both ExxonMobil and the U.S. Department of Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Deer Park Shell chemical plant flaring that started Thursday still active, could last days longer

Flaring during an emergency is normally a good sign that emergency systems are working as they should, and burning materials that would otherwise be released into the community, but flaring incidents still have physical and mental impacts on nearby communities, County Judge Lina Hidalgo said.

Gregory Bull/APFILE: Thursday, Aug. 31, 2017, a flame burns at the Shell Deer Park oil refinery in Deer Park, Texas.Flaring at a Shell chemical plant in Deer Park that started after a power outage around 3:45 p.m. Thursday was still going on Monday morning, and could last days longer, according to the Deer Park Office of Emergency Management. In a statement Friday, Shell said it’s taking steps to minimize any noise, light or smoke associated with the flaring activity that’s expected to last until power is fully restored. An Environmental Duty Representative at Shell Deer Park said there is no threat to community members or industry neighbors. “As you know, the flares play a key role in keeping our planet safe,” according to Shell. “Once flared, the hydrocarbon has been safely treated and potential emissions have been reduced by at least 98 percent. We want to apologize for any inconveniences this activity may cause.” “The flares are currently very high in the air, which means there is low risk for contaminants to reach the community,” County Judge Lina Hidalgo said in a statement.” Hidalgo said the Harris County Office of Emergency Management and Pollution Control are continuing to monitor the situation, despite having unanswered questions surrounding it. “Unfortunately, Harris County Pollution Control has not received specific answers as to which chemicals are involved in the incident or why the flaring will last so long,” Hidalgo said. “Although that disclosure is not required by state law, Shell owes it to our community to let our regulatory department know which chemicals are being released.”   Flaring during an emergency is normally a good sign that emergency systems are working as they should, and burning materials that would otherwise be released into the community, but flaring incidents still have physical and mental impacts on nearby communities, she said. “We also don’t want to accept incidents like this as ‘business as usual,” Hidalgo said. “We are doing everything in our power to understand what the potential impact to the community might be.”

Yellowstone fish still under scrutiny months after derailment

Nine months after a train accident spilled asphalt into the Yellowstone River, officials debate the safety of its fish for consumption.Brett French reports for The Billings Gazette.In short:State officials are evaluating the safety of consuming fish from a section of the Yellowstone River affected by a train derailment that released asphalt.Various fish species tested showed high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), raising health concerns.Efforts are underway to further assess the spread of PAHs and decide on the continuation of the fish consumption advisory.Key quote:“The agencies are developing a plan for additional sampling in the spring to help delineate the extent of PAHs for human consumption concerns and confirm whether continuing the advisory is warranted.”— Moira Davin, public relations specialist for the Montana Department of Environmental QualityWhy this matters:Train derailments can be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, leading to reduced populations or even local extinctions. The contamination of water and soil can affect the entire food chain. Smaller species that are directly exposed to pollutants can be consumed by larger predators, causing bioaccumulation of hazardous substances in wildlife. Public health can also be affected, as residents of East Palestine found after a Norfolk Southern train derailed carrying an array of toxic chemicals.

Nine months after a train accident spilled asphalt into the Yellowstone River, officials debate the safety of its fish for consumption.Brett French reports for The Billings Gazette.In short:State officials are evaluating the safety of consuming fish from a section of the Yellowstone River affected by a train derailment that released asphalt.Various fish species tested showed high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), raising health concerns.Efforts are underway to further assess the spread of PAHs and decide on the continuation of the fish consumption advisory.Key quote:“The agencies are developing a plan for additional sampling in the spring to help delineate the extent of PAHs for human consumption concerns and confirm whether continuing the advisory is warranted.”— Moira Davin, public relations specialist for the Montana Department of Environmental QualityWhy this matters:Train derailments can be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms, leading to reduced populations or even local extinctions. The contamination of water and soil can affect the entire food chain. Smaller species that are directly exposed to pollutants can be consumed by larger predators, causing bioaccumulation of hazardous substances in wildlife. Public health can also be affected, as residents of East Palestine found after a Norfolk Southern train derailed carrying an array of toxic chemicals.

Biden's $6 billion industrial carbon offensive

The Energy Department plans to award up to $6 billion across 33 projects to wring carbon dioxide from heavy industries like metals, chemicals, and cement.Why it matters: It's the "single largest industrial decarbonization investment in American history," DOE boss Jennifer Granholm told reporters.Industrial processes create roughly a fourth of U.S. CO2 emissions — and even close to a third — depending on how you slice the national pie.It's also the Biden administration's latest in a multi-pronged effort to tame domestic carbon emissions.State of play: The projects are funded largely through the Democrats' 2022 climate law, with some cash from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, too.They would together provide yearly emissions cuts that match the annual CO2 output of 3 million gasoline-powered cars, the agency estimates.It's a federal cost-share with companies, so officials see over $20 billion in total investment.Monday's announcement also touts efforts to use union labor and tackle environmental justice — both key Democratic policy priorities.Data: Rhodium Group; Chart: Axios VisualsThe big picture: Making heavy industries climate-friendly is a tough nut to crack, as these sectors often need massive energy inputs and extremely high heat. And unlike the electricity system, a similarly large CO2 source, solutions are often lacking at commercial scale.Zoom in: Examples of the 33 projects include...Converting a Constellium aluminum plant in West Virginia to use furnaces that can run on cleaner fuels including hydrogen.Installing a CO2 capture and storage system at a Heidelberg Materials cement plant in Indiana.Slashing process heat emissions from Kraft Heinz facilities in nine states by using various electrification technologies.Yes, but: These are initial decisions subject to more grant negotiations. And if funded, a project faces "go/no-go" decision points at various phases, where the agency weighs progress and community benefits.What's next: Officials hope this spurs use of cleaner tech in these industries more widely — in the U.S. and worldwide."The solutions that we are funding are replicable, and they're scalable," Granholm said.

The Energy Department plans to award up to $6 billion across 33 projects to wring carbon dioxide from heavy industries like metals, chemicals, and cement.Why it matters: It's the "single largest industrial decarbonization investment in American history," DOE boss Jennifer Granholm told reporters.Industrial processes create roughly a fourth of U.S. CO2 emissions — and even close to a third — depending on how you slice the national pie.It's also the Biden administration's latest in a multi-pronged effort to tame domestic carbon emissions.State of play: The projects are funded largely through the Democrats' 2022 climate law, with some cash from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, too.They would together provide yearly emissions cuts that match the annual CO2 output of 3 million gasoline-powered cars, the agency estimates.It's a federal cost-share with companies, so officials see over $20 billion in total investment.Monday's announcement also touts efforts to use union labor and tackle environmental justice — both key Democratic policy priorities.Data: Rhodium Group; Chart: Axios VisualsThe big picture: Making heavy industries climate-friendly is a tough nut to crack, as these sectors often need massive energy inputs and extremely high heat. And unlike the electricity system, a similarly large CO2 source, solutions are often lacking at commercial scale.Zoom in: Examples of the 33 projects include...Converting a Constellium aluminum plant in West Virginia to use furnaces that can run on cleaner fuels including hydrogen.Installing a CO2 capture and storage system at a Heidelberg Materials cement plant in Indiana.Slashing process heat emissions from Kraft Heinz facilities in nine states by using various electrification technologies.Yes, but: These are initial decisions subject to more grant negotiations. And if funded, a project faces "go/no-go" decision points at various phases, where the agency weighs progress and community benefits.What's next: Officials hope this spurs use of cleaner tech in these industries more widely — in the U.S. and worldwide."The solutions that we are funding are replicable, and they're scalable," Granholm said.

Paused Ohio chemical recycling plant puts spotlight on Appalachia as “prime target” for the controversial practice

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — On a bright, cold day in February, Akim Lattermore stood in front of her house gesturing toward the site of a proposed facility that would convert old tires, electronic waste and plastic into fuel.The site, owned by SOBE Thermal Energy Systems, is currently home to crumbling old buildings and a natural-gas-powered steam heat generating unit. It’s less than half a mile from Lattermore’s home, visible from her front yard, which bears a sign with a picture of a black plume of smoke and the message “Stop SOBE. We have enough toxic air pollution.”“I’m a two-time cancer survivor,” Lattermore told Environmental Health News (EHN). “I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.”Youngstown has a long industrial history and is still home to numerous sources of industrial pollution, including a steel plant and other metal fabricators, a concrete plant and a hazardous waste processing facility. Youngstown’s polluting industries released 80,600 pounds of toxic chemicals into air and water in 2022, including carcinogenic heavy metals like lead, nickel and chromium compounds, and possible carcinogens like ethylbenzene, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxics Release Inventory. Residents like Lattermore fear that SOBE’s proposed chemical recycling plant — currently on hold after the city passed a one-year moratorium — will only add to this toxic burden. “I’m a two-time cancer survivor. I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.” - Akim Lattermore, Youngstown, Ohio, residentThere are proposals in the works for similar chemical recycling plants across the country. According to a 2023 report by the nonprofit organization Beyond Plastics, 11 such facilities had already been constructed in the U.S. as of September 2023, with one closing this year. Proposals for projects similar to SOBE’s throughout the Ohio River Valley have also met with community resistance — but more are likely on the way. “Appalachia is definitely a prime target for chemical recycling,” Jess Conard, Appalachia director of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics, told EHN. “There are often big tax subsidies available for these kinds of industries in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, and it’s part of the culture of this region that people feel like they have to make health sacrifices to put food on the table, as we’ve seen with extractive industries like coal mining and fracking.”At least two other chemical recycling plants in Ohio have received state or local subsidies, according to a 2023 Beyond Plastics’s report. Alterra, located in Akron, Ohio, received a $1.6 million state loan and support from the city of Akron in the form of various discounts, including a $1 per year property lease in return for “a percentage of the project’s future cash flow,” while Purecycle in Ironton, Ohio, received $250 million in revenue bonds from the Southern Ohio Port Authority. Chemical recycling facilities may also receive federal subsidies through numerous programs, including the Department of Energy’s $25 million Strategy for Plastic Innovation, grants and loans from the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture, and the federal Inflation Reduction Act. While these projects plow ahead promising an answer to the plastics crisis, communities are concerned about the impacts. “Right now there’s no proof that this is safe,” Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City Council, which passed the year-long moratorium, told EHN. Chemical recycling controversy Chemical recycling is an umbrella term for processes that use heat, chemicals or both to break down plastic waste into component parts for reuse as plastic feedstocks or as fuel. These processes are different from conventional or mechanical plastic recycling, which breaks down plastic waste physically but not at a molecular level. Only 5 to 6% of plastic waste gets recycled in the U.S., and proponents of chemical recycling say it could help create a truly circular economy. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution,” Chris Layton, director of sustainability for specialty plastics at Eastman Chemical Company, told EHN. “We’re going to have to eliminate some plastics we really don't need, figure out ways to reduce and reuse and maximize what we can do for mechanical and advanced recycling.” However, opponents say chemical recycling facilities worsen climate change and emit toxic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and other persistent pollutants; volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Lattermore worries about the cumulative effects. “So many other members of my family who have lived in this house have also had cancer. My grandma, my dad, my sister,” Lattermore said. “I have four grandkids, two daughters. How are they going to survive living so close to that type of waste?” The American Chemistry Council is advocating for relaxed environmental regulations for these types of facilities, encouraging states to reclassify them from solid waste facilities to manufacturing facilities, which requires less rigorous permitting applications, reduces regulatory oversight of air emissions and toxic waste and allows them to seek additional taxpayer subsidies. Ohio is one of 24 states that have already done this, along with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi — a grouping that encompasses most of the Ohio River Valley and much of Appalachia. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution.” Chris Layton, Eastman Chemical CompanyMeanwhile, environmental advocates are fighting to stop these plants from being constructed. “Even if all of the advanced recycling plants in the U.S. were functioning at full capacity with no issues, they would only be managing 1.3% of global plastic waste we currently have,” Conard said. “The plastic industry is pushing this technology as a solution so they can continue manufacturing new plastic.”Environmental justice concerns Lattermore was among a group of local residents who fought to stop SOBE’s plant in Youngstown. They distributed fliers, called policymakers and knocked on doors to gather hundreds of petition signatures. Eventually, they garnered support from Youngstown City Council. “I think one of my primary concerns is the location,” Hetrick said. “It's in a busy neighborhood. There are residential neighbors, two popular bars right there, a restaurant caddy corner, a church on the other side, a five or six story jail a half block in the other direction, and a bunch of Youngstown State University student housing right there.” “It’s also an environmental justice area, and in terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation,” he explained. In September, a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency noting that the project “raises potential environmental justice concerns” because Youngstown ranks in the 80th percentile in the state for pollution from include ozone, diesel particulate matter, air toxics cancer risk, traffic proximity, lead paint, Superfund site Proximity, Risk Management Program (RMP) facility proximity, hazardous waste proximity, underground storage tanks and wastewater discharge. “The population living in the area around the facility is significantly comprised of people of color, linguistically isolated households (Spanish language), those with low income, those with less than a high school education and a high unemployment rate,” the letter noted, before advising the Ohio EPA to “conduct a more thorough environmental justice analysis of appropriate scope to inform the permitting decision.” In December, Youngstown City Council unanimously voted to adopt a one-year moratorium on pyrolysis, gasification or combustion of tires, plastics and electronic waste. Council said they intended to spend the year further researching these types of facilities. "In terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation.” - Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City CouncilWhen Hetrick researched other facilities, he found stories about dangerous accidents and fires at a chemical recycling plant in Ashley, Indiana, which amplified his concerns. In a statement about the moratorium on its website, SOBE said the company “respects this cautious approach and is committed to working closely with city officials and community members.” SOBE did not respond to a request for an interview. In February, the Ohio EPA issued an air permit for SOBE’s proposed plant, prompting outcry from the community. “I am deeply disappointed in the Ohio EPA and their decision to grant a permit to SOBE,” Hetrick said in a statement after the announcement. “It’s clear to me that the Ohio EPA spent months copying, categorizing and calculating the hundreds of comments from concerned Youngstown residents, but not actually listening to us or responding in any meaningful way.”

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio — On a bright, cold day in February, Akim Lattermore stood in front of her house gesturing toward the site of a proposed facility that would convert old tires, electronic waste and plastic into fuel.The site, owned by SOBE Thermal Energy Systems, is currently home to crumbling old buildings and a natural-gas-powered steam heat generating unit. It’s less than half a mile from Lattermore’s home, visible from her front yard, which bears a sign with a picture of a black plume of smoke and the message “Stop SOBE. We have enough toxic air pollution.”“I’m a two-time cancer survivor,” Lattermore told Environmental Health News (EHN). “I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.”Youngstown has a long industrial history and is still home to numerous sources of industrial pollution, including a steel plant and other metal fabricators, a concrete plant and a hazardous waste processing facility. Youngstown’s polluting industries released 80,600 pounds of toxic chemicals into air and water in 2022, including carcinogenic heavy metals like lead, nickel and chromium compounds, and possible carcinogens like ethylbenzene, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxics Release Inventory. Residents like Lattermore fear that SOBE’s proposed chemical recycling plant — currently on hold after the city passed a one-year moratorium — will only add to this toxic burden. “I’m a two-time cancer survivor. I believe that our environment has a lot to do with it.” - Akim Lattermore, Youngstown, Ohio, residentThere are proposals in the works for similar chemical recycling plants across the country. According to a 2023 report by the nonprofit organization Beyond Plastics, 11 such facilities had already been constructed in the U.S. as of September 2023, with one closing this year. Proposals for projects similar to SOBE’s throughout the Ohio River Valley have also met with community resistance — but more are likely on the way. “Appalachia is definitely a prime target for chemical recycling,” Jess Conard, Appalachia director of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics, told EHN. “There are often big tax subsidies available for these kinds of industries in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia, and it’s part of the culture of this region that people feel like they have to make health sacrifices to put food on the table, as we’ve seen with extractive industries like coal mining and fracking.”At least two other chemical recycling plants in Ohio have received state or local subsidies, according to a 2023 Beyond Plastics’s report. Alterra, located in Akron, Ohio, received a $1.6 million state loan and support from the city of Akron in the form of various discounts, including a $1 per year property lease in return for “a percentage of the project’s future cash flow,” while Purecycle in Ironton, Ohio, received $250 million in revenue bonds from the Southern Ohio Port Authority. Chemical recycling facilities may also receive federal subsidies through numerous programs, including the Department of Energy’s $25 million Strategy for Plastic Innovation, grants and loans from the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture, and the federal Inflation Reduction Act. While these projects plow ahead promising an answer to the plastics crisis, communities are concerned about the impacts. “Right now there’s no proof that this is safe,” Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City Council, which passed the year-long moratorium, told EHN. Chemical recycling controversy Chemical recycling is an umbrella term for processes that use heat, chemicals or both to break down plastic waste into component parts for reuse as plastic feedstocks or as fuel. These processes are different from conventional or mechanical plastic recycling, which breaks down plastic waste physically but not at a molecular level. Only 5 to 6% of plastic waste gets recycled in the U.S., and proponents of chemical recycling say it could help create a truly circular economy. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution,” Chris Layton, director of sustainability for specialty plastics at Eastman Chemical Company, told EHN. “We’re going to have to eliminate some plastics we really don't need, figure out ways to reduce and reuse and maximize what we can do for mechanical and advanced recycling.” However, opponents say chemical recycling facilities worsen climate change and emit toxic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins and other persistent pollutants; volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Lattermore worries about the cumulative effects. “So many other members of my family who have lived in this house have also had cancer. My grandma, my dad, my sister,” Lattermore said. “I have four grandkids, two daughters. How are they going to survive living so close to that type of waste?” The American Chemistry Council is advocating for relaxed environmental regulations for these types of facilities, encouraging states to reclassify them from solid waste facilities to manufacturing facilities, which requires less rigorous permitting applications, reduces regulatory oversight of air emissions and toxic waste and allows them to seek additional taxpayer subsidies. Ohio is one of 24 states that have already done this, along with Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi — a grouping that encompasses most of the Ohio River Valley and much of Appalachia. “We’re not going to create circularity for plastics with one single solution.” Chris Layton, Eastman Chemical CompanyMeanwhile, environmental advocates are fighting to stop these plants from being constructed. “Even if all of the advanced recycling plants in the U.S. were functioning at full capacity with no issues, they would only be managing 1.3% of global plastic waste we currently have,” Conard said. “The plastic industry is pushing this technology as a solution so they can continue manufacturing new plastic.”Environmental justice concerns Lattermore was among a group of local residents who fought to stop SOBE’s plant in Youngstown. They distributed fliers, called policymakers and knocked on doors to gather hundreds of petition signatures. Eventually, they garnered support from Youngstown City Council. “I think one of my primary concerns is the location,” Hetrick said. “It's in a busy neighborhood. There are residential neighbors, two popular bars right there, a restaurant caddy corner, a church on the other side, a five or six story jail a half block in the other direction, and a bunch of Youngstown State University student housing right there.” “It’s also an environmental justice area, and in terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation,” he explained. In September, a representative from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent a letter to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency noting that the project “raises potential environmental justice concerns” because Youngstown ranks in the 80th percentile in the state for pollution from include ozone, diesel particulate matter, air toxics cancer risk, traffic proximity, lead paint, Superfund site Proximity, Risk Management Program (RMP) facility proximity, hazardous waste proximity, underground storage tanks and wastewater discharge. “The population living in the area around the facility is significantly comprised of people of color, linguistically isolated households (Spanish language), those with low income, those with less than a high school education and a high unemployment rate,” the letter noted, before advising the Ohio EPA to “conduct a more thorough environmental justice analysis of appropriate scope to inform the permitting decision.” In December, Youngstown City Council unanimously voted to adopt a one-year moratorium on pyrolysis, gasification or combustion of tires, plastics and electronic waste. Council said they intended to spend the year further researching these types of facilities. "In terms of environmental risks and hazards it just seems like a terrible place to put this kind of operation.” - Tom Hetrick, president of Youngstown City CouncilWhen Hetrick researched other facilities, he found stories about dangerous accidents and fires at a chemical recycling plant in Ashley, Indiana, which amplified his concerns. In a statement about the moratorium on its website, SOBE said the company “respects this cautious approach and is committed to working closely with city officials and community members.” SOBE did not respond to a request for an interview. In February, the Ohio EPA issued an air permit for SOBE’s proposed plant, prompting outcry from the community. “I am deeply disappointed in the Ohio EPA and their decision to grant a permit to SOBE,” Hetrick said in a statement after the announcement. “It’s clear to me that the Ohio EPA spent months copying, categorizing and calculating the hundreds of comments from concerned Youngstown residents, but not actually listening to us or responding in any meaningful way.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.