By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
The keyboard I am writing with and the computer I am writing on are packed with products made by petrochemicals. Plastics and petrochemical-based materials are interwoven in our economy and our daily lives. As we stop burning these unique finite resources for fuel, we can expect their use in material production to continue to grow. EPA is responsible for regulating petrochemicals, although clearly the scope of production seems beyond the agency’s ever-diminishing capacity to regulate. According to the EPA:
“The EPA promulgated the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Effluent Guidelines and Standards (40 CFR Part 414) in 1987, and amended the regulation in 1989, 1990, 1992, and 1993. The regulation covers wastewater discharges from more than 1,000 chemical facilities…The OCPSF category includes more than 1,000 chemical facilities producing over 25,000 end products, such as benzene, toluene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, chlorinated solvents, rubber precursors, rayon, nylon, and polyester. The OCPSF industry is large and diverse, and many plants are highly complex. Some plants produce chemicals in large volumes through continuous chemical processes, while others produce only small volumes of "specialty" chemicals through batch chemical processes…The OCPSF category includes more than 1,000 chemical facilities producing over 25,000 end products, such as benzene, toluene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride, chlorinated solvents, rubber precursors, rayon, nylon, and polyester. The OCPSF industry is large and diverse, and many plants are highly complex. Some plants produce chemicals in large volumes through continuous chemical processes, while others produce only small volumes of "specialty" chemicals through batch chemical processes.”
This part of the EPA’s regulatory function only deals with water pollution from these chemicals. Petrochemicals also pollute the air and land. When chemicals are combined to create new and useful products, they also produce wastes that cannot easily be reused. Moreover, the incentives for innovation and creative brainpower devoted to new and more useful products far outweigh the incentives to produce products that do not produce toxic wastes. Many petrochemical plants emit hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, ethylene oxide, and vinyl chloride, among many other threats to human health. These chemicals can cause cancer and can impair human neurological, respiratory, reproductive, and developmental health.
Petrochemicals cause air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, climate change, and can impact biodiversity. Water pollution from petrochemicals alone is massive. EPA’s wastewater rules apply to organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers. Wastewater rules cover discharges from more than 1,000 chemical facilities; a huge amount of chemical waste is unceremoniously dumped into America’s waterways. In addition to regulated “discharges,” sloppy management and pure neglect result in tank and pipeline leaks as well as leaks from waste ponds, landfills, and old disposal sites. These leaks contaminate soil and groundwater with hydrocarbons, solvents, metals, and chemicals that do not biodegrade. Petrochemical products themselves become environmental pollutants when they take the form of marine debris, impairing marine health and ecosystems. Microplastics have been found in human bodies and our food supply. We are only beginning to understand microplastic persistence, along with their health and environmental impacts.
As we learned recently in Orange County, California, and Washington state, chemical tanks and facilities can also pose massive threats when something goes wrong. Petrochemical plants and storage facilities contain flammable, pressurized, and often toxic materials. When accidents or mismanagement take place, the impact can be devastating, as toxic fires, explosions, emissions, and poisoned runoff from firefighting can damage the environment as well as cause injuries and death. The incident in Orange County required a mass evacuation but fortunately never turned catastrophic. But an explosion was feared and would have been quite destructive. According to Dylan Lovan of the Associated Press:
“The storage tank at GKN Aerospace with about 6,000 to 7,000 gallons (22,713 to 26,498 liters) of methyl methacrylate used to make plastic parts overheated last week and began venting vapors into the air around Garden Grove, a city in Orange County.”
In Washington state, the incident was a catastrophe. According to CNN’s Ray Sanchez:
“The talk in Longview – an industrial and shipping hub along the Columbia River in southwestern Washington, roughly 50 miles north of Portland, Oregon – on Wednesday centered on the search for those missing and presumed dead a day after a chemical tank rupture at a popular paper plant. Eleven people are believed to have died in the tragedy.”
Not all petrochemical products are equally hazardous. Some plastics and petrochemical products are stable and do not cause damage when produced or used. Moreover, if we were able to enjoy rigorous regulation, closed-loop systems that reuse waste, better monitoring of emissions and effluent, and safer product design, risks could be reduced. But the deregulatory zealotry of Lee Zeldin’s Environmental Destruction Agency is the last place I’d look for effective control of toxic chemicals. Zeldin’s emaciated agency has no capacity or even interest in developing effective regulation of petrochemicals.
There are some efforts in industry to develop green chemistry, although they are not mainstream and, to date, are only a tiny and mainly symbolic effort. BASF’s Verbund system links the company’s manufacturing plants, so waste from one process can become starting materials for another. They creatively conserve and utilize waste heat as much as possible, and work to conserve energy and raw materials. BASF believes its Verbund system avoids emissions, lowers logistics costs, and prevented 5.2 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions in 2025. It is an example of an effort to move from a linear production model to a circular one. A more limited experiment is Dow Chemical’s Fort Saskatchewan Path2Zero project, which, according to Dow’s website, will:
“Include a brownfield expansion and retrofit of Dow’s existing manufacturing site in Fort Saskatchewan… Decarbonize approximately 20 percent of Dow’s global ethylene capacity while growing polyethylene supply by about 15 percent… Triple Dow’s ethylene and polyethylene capacity from the site, while retrofitting the site’s existing assets to net-zero carbon emissions… Produce and supply approximately 3.2 million metric tonnes of certified low- to zero-carbon emissions polyethylene and ethylene derivatives for customers and joint venture partners around the globe.”
These earnest efforts at pollution reduction will not address the fundamental threats posed by unregulated toxic chemical pollution. Dow’s focus on greenhouse gas reduction is admirable, but sort of misses the point. The chemical industry contributes modestly to global warming but massively to toxic pollution. The complexity of our chemical industry is a function of its core value of creativity and innovation. New chemical combinations provide the material basis for new products with new features, and these innovations lead to sales. Regulating this process risks reducing its creativity and capacity to innovate. But an unregulated chemical industry risks poisoning people and the planet, and once some of these toxics enter the food chain, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to remove them. One of the properties of plastic and of many petrochemicals is that they are quite durable and do not biodegrade. That feature is also a cause of harm.
Regulating this degree of complexity is a daunting challenge. EPA’s organizational capacity to monitor and regulate this industry has never been particularly robust, but has never been as pathetic as it is today. According to a piece in Science Direct back in 2022 by Susanne M. Brander, then of Oregon State University and now a Project Director of Pew Safer Chemicals:
“Each year, over 2,000 new chemicals are added to the tens of thousands that already flood the global market. Of these, an estimated 1% have been assessed adequately for safety, and many more are suspected to be toxic. Individual regulatory agencies lack the resources and political power to tackle this enormous challenge, signaling the need for a targeted global approach to handling chemical pollution.”
Just as climate scientists believe that greenhouse gases must be regulated at the global level, we see a similar type of advocacy from one of the world’s most expert ecotoxicologists. The call for even targeted global governance cannot substitute for a robust system of national governance. If adequate governance of toxic chemicals is going to take place, it will need to begin in nation-states since that is where sovereignty reigns. In the United States, that would require a massive increase in staff capacity in the national Environmental Protection Agency. Given the combined economic and political power of the petrochemical industry, it is unlikely we will see that in the current administration. We also did not see it during the Obama or Biden administrations. The only hope for effective regulation in the future is that the public comes to understand the damage these chemicals cause to people and the planet and pushes politicians to act on it.
My profound hope is that the cultural change that has resulted in an increase in the public’s awareness of “wellness” and the impact of diet, exercise, and environmental factors on human health will focus attention on toxic chemicals. Some wellness concerns have led to conspiracy craziness, like vaccine skeptics and the extremes of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, but some have resulted in attempts by management, workers, and community members to reduce environmental damage impacting human health. In many respects, it is the combination of cultural change, continued public education (without disinformation), and a resulting set of political demands that must be combined to develop the political will and power needed to police this unregulated and dangerous industry. I suspect that as we slowly reduce greenhouse gas pollution and the “existential threat” of climate change, we may well turn our attention to the danger of an economy built on a toxic foundation. America leads the petrochemical industry, and if that industry is ever to be adequately policed, its governance must begin here at home.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
.
