{"id":19006,"date":"2018-10-03T12:11:56","date_gmt":"2018-10-03T17:11:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=19006"},"modified":"2018-10-03T12:11:56","modified_gmt":"2018-10-03T17:11:56","slug":"its-time-to-close-epas-harmful-new-air-toxics-loophole","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2018\/10\/03\/its-time-to-close-epas-harmful-new-air-toxics-loophole\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s time to close EPA\u2019s harmful new air toxics loophole"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

This post was co-authored by EDF Legal Fellow Surbhi Sarang<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier this year EPA created a pollution loophole that would allow industrial facilities to increase their emissions of toxic air pollutants like benzene, creating a huge risk to public health.<\/p>\n

This week EDF and a coalition of seven other environmental, environmental justice, and public health organizations are saying \u2018enough,\u2019 and asking the courts to close this outrageous loophole.<\/p>\n

Closing this damaging loophole is an important step in our fight to defend long-standing Clean Air Act protections that safeguard families and communities in the nation.<\/p>\n

On Monday, the coalition filed an\u00a0opening brief<\/a>\u00a0with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit explaining our case.<\/p>\n

Why this loophole is so problematic<\/strong><\/p>\n

Under the Clean Air Act, large industrial facilities like refineries and chemical plants are required to obey strict pollution control standards (called \u201cmaximum achievable control technology\u201d or \u201cMACT\u201d standards) once their emissions of toxic air pollutants exceed certain \u201cmajor source\u201d thresholds.<\/p>\n

These standards are highly effective in reducing pollution \u2013 so effective that they often cause industrial facilities to reduce their emissions of air pollution below the \u201cmajor source\u201d thresholds.<\/p>\n

The air pollutants controlled by these MACT standards are known as \u201chazardous air pollutants\u201d and include 187 separate pollutants, including mercury and lead, that are known or suspected to cause cancer or otherwise seriously harm human health.<\/p>\n

In order to keep these dramatic air pollution reductions in place, since 1995 \u2014 under administrations of both parties \u2014 EPA has required large industrial facilities to continue complying with the strict MACT standards for as long as they operate.<\/p>\n

EPA has done so for an important reason \u2013 if a facility could simply \u201copt out\u201d of a MACT standard because complying with the standard caused it to reduce its emissions below the threshold, that facility would then be free to stop or reduce its use of those required pollution controls and increase pollution once again. That would harm the health of people nearby and defeat the very purpose of the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n

But in January, heeding requests from a number of industry trade groups, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt suddenly reversed this long-standing policy. He did so unlawfully \u2013 in a four-page memo issued without consulting with the public and without even considering the damage this would cause to our environment and public health or the disproportionate impact this would have on environmental justice communities<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The loophole is a profoundly harmful and abrupt policy decision that \u2013 according to analyses published by EDF<\/a> and other organizations \u2013 could allow thousands of industrial facilities across the country to become subject to much weaker or even no air pollution controls.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, it\u2019s part of a larger pattern in which this administration is systematically dismantling vital Clean Air Act protections \u2013 which has included attacks on protections against climate pollution and toxic air pollution from power plants, protections on pollution from oil and gas facilities, and clean car standards.<\/p>\n

The Air Toxics Loophole is filled with fatal legal flaws<\/strong><\/p>\n

In our opening brief<\/a>, we show that:<\/p>\n