17WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG JULY 20, 2009

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS are urging the Environmental Protection Agency to turn down a request from Dow AgroSciences to field-test a

pesticide that is a potent greenhouse gas. The chemical in question is sulfuryl fluoride, SO 2 F 2 .

The compound has been used for more than 40 years to fumigate buildings. It is increasingly being substituted for methyl bromide, a pesticide that depletes strato-spheric ozone and is being phased out internationally (C&EN, Feb. 2, page 29).

In March, Dow AgroSciences asked EPA for an experimental-use permit to field-test sulfuryl fluoride as a soil fumigant. According to the application it sub-mitted to the agency, Dow AgroSciences wants to use 32,500 lb of the product on fields in California, Florida, Georgia, and Texas where tomatoes, peppers, squash, cucumbers, or melons are grown.

EPA issues experimental-use permits to allow a company to field-test new pesticides—or older prod-ucts for new applications—before they are registered and commercialized.

Now, six environmental groups, includ-ing the Sierra Club and the Pesticide Action Network North America, are asking EPA to reject Dow AgroSciences’ request. They cite a paper published in late 2008 that cal-culated sulfuryl fluoride’s global-warming potential over a century to be 4,780 times

that of carbon dioxide ( J. Phys. Chem. A 2008, 112, 12657). Using this number, the organizations estimate that if 10% of the sulfuryl fluoride in the proposed field tests is released into the atmosphere, it would be the equivalent of emitting 15.5 million lb of CO 2 . The groups are also worried about the chemical’s toxicity (C&EN, Sept. 4, 2006, page 34).

Dow AgroSciences downplays the global-warming concerns. “There is a high degree of uncertain-ty about sulfuryl fluo-ride’s global-warming potential, and estimates vary significantly from paper to paper,” the com-pany said in a statement. “Regardless of which estimates are used, compared with the mag-nitude of emissions from fossil fuel use, deforesta-tion, and other sources, the total amount of sulfuryl fluoride released to the atmosphere from authorized treatments,” which are now restricted to fumigation of buildings, “is relatively small.”

For its part, EPA says it will take into consideration global-warming and toxicity issues as it reviews Dow AgroSciences’ application for the field tests. “EPA an-

ticipates conducting a human health risk assessment and an ecological risk assess-ment” for sulfuryl fluoride, the agency said in a statement.

An EPA spokesman tells C&EN that he does not know when the agency is expected to rule on Dow AgroSciences’ application. —CHERYL HOGUE

Chemical companies residing near the Chocolate Bayou, Texas, operations of LyondellBasell Industries are objecting to its plans to close plants there.

The U.S. subsidiaries of LyondellBasell have been under bankruptcy protection since January. The company wants to permanently close an ethylene cracker in Chocolate Bayou. Lyondell also plans to shut down a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plant about a mile and a half away.

Ineos, which owns a complex adjacent to the HDPE plant, has filed an objection to that shutdown with the U.S. bankrupt-cy court. Ineos says it has a right to pur-

chase the facility, should Lyondell decide to close it, dating back to 1988, when In-eos predecessor Amoco sold the plant to Lyondell forerunner Quantum Chemical. Ineos says Lyondell rejected its $1 million offer for the facility this spring.

Lyondell has said that the plant is no longer economical and costs $12 million per year to keep running. The court will hold a hearing on the plant’s fate next month.

Separately, Lyondell’s plans to close the Chocolate Bayou ethylene cracker are being challenged by Solutia and As-cend Performance Materials, the former and current owners of the site, respec-

tively. In a filing with the bankruptcy court, the companies say Lyondell plans to abandon tanks, pipes, and sewer lines at the site in a way that “presents im-minent and substantial threats to human health and safety, the other operations at the Chocolate Bayou plant, and the environment.”

A Lyondell spokesman declines to elaborate on either of the complaints, noting that the company will “save that for when we respond in the court pro-cess.” In a transition plan sent to Solutia earlier this month, Lyondell promised “a safe and orderly transition of the Choco-late Bayou facility.” —ALEX TULLO

BANKRUPTCY LyondellBasell faces uproar over plans to close plants in Texas

NEWS OF THE WEEK

SH

UT

TE

RS

TO

CK

PESTICIDE CONTROVERSY

REGULATION: Activists express concern over field-test request

for greenhouse gas

Tomato fields are among the targets of Dow AgroSciences’ request.

O

O

SF

F

Sulfuryl fluoride