EPA reverses air pollution rule | February 5, 2018 Issue - Vol. 96 Issue 6 | Chemical & Engineering News
Volume 96 Issue 6 | p. 16 | News of The Week
Issue Date: February 5, 2018 | Web Date: February 1, 2018

EPA reverses air pollution rule

Agency heeds request of Republican senators to withdraw long-standing policy
Department: Government & Policy
News Channels: Environmental SCENE
Keywords: Pollution, Fossil fuels, coal, chemical plant, hazardous waste, incinerator, emissions
Coal-fired power plants, such as this one in Kentucky, could find their air emission regulations eased.
Credit: Shutterstock
Photo of power plant stacks taken from across a river.
Coal-fired power plants, such as this one in Kentucky, could find their air emission regulations eased.
Credit: Shutterstock

As part of the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce burdensome regulations, the U.S. EPA has withdrawn a 23-year-old policy intended to reduce air emissions of hazardous substances such as arsenic, lead, mercury, and benzene.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

Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright © American Chemical Society
Dnarb (Fri Feb 02 10:55:48 EST 2018)
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 (Sat Feb 03 12:49:34 EST 2018)
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 (Wed Feb 07 12:55:38 EST 2018)
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