ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Environment

EPA reverses air pollution rule

Agency heeds request of Republican senators to withdraw long-standing policy

by Britt E. Erickson
February 1, 2018 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 96, ISSUE 6

Credit: Shutterstock
Coal-fired power plants, such as this one in Kentucky, could find their air emission regulations eased.

As part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce burdensome regulations, the U.S. EPA has withdrawn a 23-year-old policy intended to reduce air emissions of hazardous substances such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and benzene. Affected facilities include coal-fired power plants and chemical facilities.

Under the former policy, once a facility was classified as a “major” source of hazardous air emissions, it was always considered a major source. That meant that it was required to reduce emissions down to levels based on how much is technologically possible for the lifetime of the operation.

Now, under guidelines released by EPA on Jan. 25, facilities that are classified as a major source can be reclassified as an “area” source if their emissions fall below a certain threshold. Area sources are subject to weaker standards than major sources.

Chemical manufacturers, the fossil fuel industry, and Republicans in Congress are cheering the move. In a Jan. 9 letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), leaders on the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, wrote that the policy “discourages” and “disincentivizes” air emissions reductions. The committee received such complaints from the American Coatings Association (ACA) and other industry groups as part of a Nov. 15 hearing on reducing air emissions through innovation. ACA noted that “resources spent on compliance could be used instead for [research and development], or modernization activities.”

Some Democrats argue that the decision will lead to increased air emissions of hazardous substances. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the committee, is alarmed by the abruptness of EPA’s decision to reverse the decades-old policy. “While citing no analysis of the public health impacts of this decision, Administrator Pruitt’s EPA has proactively allowed polluters to increase output of toxic air pollution,” Carper said in a statement.

Environmentalists pledged to fight EPA’s decision. “Rolling back longstanding protections to allow the greatest increase in hazardous air pollutants in our nation’s history is unconscionable,” said John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Advertisement
X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
Dnarb (February 2, 2018 10:55 AM)
The EPA is now a horrible and irresponsible organization that represent industry interest over the health of ordinary people. It is knowingly doing long-term harm to Americans and people world-wide. There is a need for the world to unite and boycot America!
Justin S (February 3, 2018 12:49 PM)
I guess the EPA doesn't care about the environment or the health of the people now? They just want to help industries apparently.
Justice A. Manning (February 7, 2018 12:55 PM)
I think that President Trump, and especially Scott Pruitt, should be required to read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson to gain a better perspective of what they are doing to the American public (America can't be "great" with its citizenry dead!). I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone with the responsibility of the EPA Administrator has such insensitivity to what they are doing to decimate gains in public health that have been made over the years since the Clean Air Act was first promulgated.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment