{"id":19935,"date":"2020-02-19T18:03:35","date_gmt":"2020-02-19T23:03:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/?p=19935"},"modified":"2020-04-29T11:27:02","modified_gmt":"2020-04-29T16:27:02","slug":"epa-data-emphasizes-danger-of-trump-administrations-air-toxics-loophole","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2020\/02\/19\/epa-data-emphasizes-danger-of-trump-administrations-air-toxics-loophole\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA data emphasizes danger of Trump Administration\u2019s \u201cair toxics loophole\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

There\u2019s been a lot of talk recently about the Trump administration undermining our protections against dangerous air pollution during the new coronavirus crisis.\u00a0But they didn\u2019t just start now.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Possible increase in total air toxic emissions from a subset of facilities eligible to reclassify under the air toxics loophole, aggregated at state and city level. In many areas, this loophole could lead to a quadrupling of air toxics from these facilities. Graphic by EDF.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Air pollution is linked to many of the underlying conditions that make some people especially vulnerable to the virus. For years, the administration has taken actions that would put more of that unhealthy pollution in our air \u2013 including through a proposed loophole to our safeguards against air pollution from large industrial sources. Data released by EPA itself shows how this loophole \u2013 which the Administration could finalize in the coming months – might expose millions of Americans to a huge increase in toxic air pollution.<\/p>\n

Last July, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler proposed to create an air toxics loophole<\/a> allowing large industrial facilities to increase their emissions of dangerous pollutants. When this proposed rule first emerged, EDF pointed out<\/a> that EPA\u2019s own data shows more than 3,900 large industrial facilities across the country are potentially eligible to take advantage of this loophole.<\/p>\n

But additional data on just a subset of these facilities, released by EPA after the proposal came out, indicates that the proposal could lead to millions of pounds of additional toxic air pollution across 48 states \u2013 with many of these facilities located in areas where millions of Americans live and work.<\/p>\n

The proposed air toxics loophole would undermine clean air safeguards for large industrial facilities across the country that are currently subject to stringent standards for the emission of mercury, benzene, and other hazardous air pollutants that may cause cancer and have other harmful health impacts. Under the proposal, many of these facilities would be eligible to \u201creclassify\u201d themselves as smaller sources subject to weaker standards or no standards at all \u2013 and therefore could operate with weaker, or no, air pollution controls.<\/p>\n

(The proposal would codify a four-page memo that Trump\u2019s EPA issued in January 2018 \u2013 with no analysis of air pollution or health impacts. EDF, a coalition of environmental groups, and the State of California challenged that memo<\/a> in court.\u00a0 Although the D.C. Circuit rejected these challenges<\/a> on procedural grounds, the court also found that the memo has no legal force or effect and cannot be relied upon by state permitting authorities or sources.)<\/p>\n

In September, EDF and 34 public health, environmental justice, labor and environmental organizations submitted comments strongly opposing<\/a> the proposed rule. EDF and four other environmental organizations also submitted detailed technical and legal comments<\/a> emphasizing the danger the rule poses to public health.<\/p>\n

Near the close of the comment period, EPA released additional data, including identifying information for specific facilities that could be eligible to reclassify under the proposed rule. EDF analyzed this additional data for clues about the devastating health and environmental impacts the air toxics loophole could have. In response to this additional data, EDF submitted supplemental comments<\/a> to EPA.<\/p>\n

Among other things, our analysis found:<\/p>\n