New EPA rule says 218 US chemical plants must reduce toxic emissions that are likely to cause cancer (2024)

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 200 chemical plants nationwide will be required to reduce toxic emissions that are likely to cause cancer under a new rule issued Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency. The rule advances President Joe Biden’s commitment to environmental justice by delivering critical health protections for communities burdened by industrial pollution from ethylene oxide, chloroprene and other dangerous chemicals, officials said.

Areas that will benefit from the new rule include majority-Black neighborhoods outside New Orleans that EPA Administrator Michael Regan visited as part of his 2021 Journey to Justice tour. The rule will significantly reduce emissions of chloroprene and other harmful pollutants at the Denka Performance Elastomer facility in LaPlace, Louisiana, the largest source of chloroprene emissions in the country, Regan said.

“Every community in this country deserves to breathe clean air. That’s why I took the Journey to Justice tour to communities like St. John the Baptist Parish, where residents have borne the brunt of toxic air for far too long,” Regan said. “We promised to listen to folks that are suffering from pollution and act to protect them. Today we deliver on that promise with strong final standards to slash pollution, reduce cancer risk and ensure cleaner air for nearby communities.”

When combined with a rule issued last month cracking down on ethylene oxide emissions from commercial sterilizers used to clean medical equipment, the new rule will reduce ethylene oxide and chloroprene emissions by nearly 80%, officials said.

The rule will apply to 218 facilities spread across the United States — more than half in Texas or Louisiana. Plants also are located in two dozen other states, including Ohio and other Midwest states, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and throughout the South, the EPA said. The action updates several regulations on chemical plant emissions that have not been tightened in nearly two decades.

Democratic Rep. Troy Carter, whose Louisiana district includes the Denka plant, called the new rule “a monumental step” to safeguard public health and the environment.

“Communities deserve to be safe. I’ve said this all along,” Carter told reporters at a briefing Monday. “It must begin with proper regulation. It must begin with listening to the people who are impacted in the neighborhoods, who undoubtedly have suffered the cost of being in close proximity of chemical plants — but not just chemical plants, chemical plants that don’t follow the rules.”

Carter said it was “critically important that measures like this are demonstrated to keep the confidence of the American people.”

The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, said it was reviewing the rule but criticized EPA’s use of what it called “a deeply flawed” method to determine the toxicity of ethylene oxide.

“We also remain concerned with the recent onslaught of chemical regulations being put forth by this administration,” the group said in a statement. Without a different approach, “the availability of critical chemistries will dwindle” in the U.S., harming the country’s supply chain, the ACC said.

The new rule will slash more than 6,200 tons (5,624 metric tonnes) of toxic air pollutants annually and implement fenceline monitoring, the EPA said, addressing health risks in surrounding communities and promoting environmental justice in Louisiana and other states.

The Justice Department sued Denka last year, saying it had been releasing unsafe concentrations of chloroprene near homes and schools. Federal regulators had determined in 2016 that chloroprene emissions from the Denka plant were contributing to the highest cancer risk of any place in the United States.

Denka, a Japanese company that bought the former DuPont rubber-making plant in 2015, said it “vehemently opposes” the EPA’s latest action.

“EPA’s rulemaking is yet another attempt to drive a policy agenda that is unsupported by the law or the science,” Denka said in a statement, adding that the agency has alleged its facility “represents a danger to its community, despite the facility’s compliance with its federal and state air permitting requirements.”

The Denka plant, which makes synthetic rubber, has been at the center of protests over pollution in majority-Black communities and EPA efforts to curb chloroprene emissions, particularly in the Mississippi River Chemical Corridor, an 85-mile (137-kilometer) industrial region known informally as Cancer Alley. Denka said it already has invested more than $35 million to reduce chloroprene emissions.

The EPA, under pressure from local activists, agreed to open a civil rights investigation of the plant to determine if state officials were putting Black residents at increased cancer risk. The agency initially found evidence of discrimination, but in June it dropped its investigation without releasing any official findings and without any commitments from the state to change its practices.

Regan said the rule issued Tuesday was separate from the civil rights investigation. He called the rule “very ambitious,” adding that officials took care to ensure “that we protect all of these communities, not just those in Cancer Alley, but communities in Texas and Puerto Rico and other areas that are threatened by these hazardous air toxic pollutants.”

While it focuses on toxic emissions, “by its very nature, this rule is providing protection to environmental justice communities — Black and brown communities, low-income communities — that have suffered for far too long,” Regan said.

Patrice Simms, vice president of the environmental law firm Earthjustice, called the rule “a victory in our pursuit for environmental justice.”

Fenceline monitoring for six toxic air pollutants — ethylene oxide, chloroprene, vinyl chloride, benzene, 1,3-butadiene and ethylene dichloride — will be crucial to ensure accountability and transparency, Simms and other advocates said. The new rule marks just the second time that EPA has mandated fenceline monitoring in air toxics standards under the Clean Air Act.

“For years, we’ve watched our families and neighbors suffer from disease, like cancer, due to underregulated emissions,” said Robert Taylor, founder of Concerned Citizens of St. John, a local advocacy group.

After the EPA closed its civil rights complaint, “we felt little hope that any government could protect us from industry,” Taylor said. The new rule is “renewing our hope,” he said.

___

Associated Press writer Michael Phillis in St. Louis contributed to this story.

New EPA rule says 218 US chemical plants must reduce toxic emissions that are likely to cause cancer (2024)

FAQs

New EPA rule says 218 US chemical plants must reduce toxic emissions that are likely to cause cancer? ›

New EPA rule says 218 US chemical plants must reduce toxic emissions that are likely to cause cancer. WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 200 chemical plants nationwide will be required to reduce toxic emissions that are likely to cause cancer under a new rule issued Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency.

What are the violations of the Clean Air Act? ›

The Clean Air Act also prohibits the manufacture, sale, or installation of aftermarket hardware parts and software – known as “defeat devices” – that allow vehicle owners to remove or disable factory-installed emission controls, as well as tampering with emission control devices.

What is the name of the Monumental Environmental Act of 1970 that ultimately led to the ban on leaded gasoline and lowered pollution levels in the air? ›

In 1970, the U.S. Congress adopted the Clean Air Act and created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

What type of human impact is the Clean Air Act designed to restrict? ›

The Clean Air Act protects many Americans from pollution-related health problems and premature death, and improves the health and productivity of the U.S. work force.

What is the Clean atmosphere Preservation Act? ›

The Clean Air Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., seeks to protect human health and the environment from emissions that pollute ambient, or outdoor, air.

What company violated the Pollution Prevention Act? ›

SACRAMENTO – Three companies paid $1,436,252 to the California Air Resources Board for failing to comply with the state's consumer products clean air regulations. The companies are Kraft Heinz Foods Co. of Chicago, Ill., Mothers Polishes, Waxes, Cleaners Inc. of Huntington Beach, and CRC Industries Inc.

What is Section 113 A of the Clean Air Act? ›

Section 113(a) (3) orders are also used to require sources to satisfy Agency requests made under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. Sections 113(a) (5) and 167 are designed to provide an administrative means of stopping the construction or modification of sources proceeding in violation of the Clean Air Act.

What is Section 177 of the Clean Air Act? ›

State Adoption of California Standards

The Clean Air Act allows other states to adopt California's motor vehicle emission standards under section 177. Section 177 requires, among other things, that such standards be identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted.

What is Section 112 of the Clean Air Act? ›

For major sources, Section 112 requires that EPA establish emission standards that require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of hazardous air pollutants. These emission standards are commonly referred to as "maximum achievable control technology" or "MACT" standards.

What is Section 138 of the Clean Air Act? ›

The Environmental and Climate Justice Program (ECJ Program), created by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 138, provides funding for financial and technical assistance to carry out environmental and climate justice activities to benefit underserved and overburdened communities.

What controversy was connected to the Clean Air Act? ›

Adding global warming to the emissions limited by the Clean Air Act has caused considerable controversy. Numerous attempts are being made in the U.S. Congress and fossil fuel industries to stop or limit the EPA from acting on its findings (see Attack on the Clean Air Act).

Was the Clean Air Act good or bad? ›

Since its enactment, the Clean Air Act has reduced air pollution by 70%, vastly benefiting the health of both America's citizens and its environment. However, although it has taken important steps to improve U.S. air quality, the scope of the Clean Air Act is nonetheless insignificant and rapidly declining.

What is Section 103 of the Clean Air Act? ›

CAA section 103 authorizes “the coordination and acceleration of, research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects (including health and welfare effects), extent, prevention, and control of air pollution.”

Which material is a common indoor air pollutant? ›

Typical pollutants of concern include: Combustion byproducts such as carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and environmental tobacco smoke. Substances of natural origin such as radon, pet dander, and mold. Biological agents such as molds.

Which factor would increase poor indoor air quality? ›

Inadequate ventilation can increase indoor pollutant levels by not bringing in enough outdoor air to dilute emissions from indoor sources and by not carrying indoor air pollutants out of the area. High temperature and humidity levels can also increase concentrations of some pollutants.

What are three sources of indoor air pollution? ›

  • Asbestos,
  • Biologic agents,
  • Building materials,
  • Radon,
  • Tobacco smoke, and.
  • Wood stoves, gas range, or other heating devices.

What are the consequences of not following the Clean Air Act? ›

Under Section 42402(b), a person may be liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day if that person has violated any Health and Safety Code section in Part 4 of Division 26 of the code, or any order, permit, rule, or regulation of a district, including a district hearing board, or of the state Air Resources ...

What happens if you don't comply with the Clean Air Act? ›

Violators are subject to civil penalties up to $45,268 per noncompliant vehicle or engine, $4,527 per tampering event or sale of defeat device, and $45,268 per day for reporting and recordkeeping violations. 42 U.S.C. § 7524; 40 C.F.R.

What is one example of a common violation of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act? ›

Common Violations

Illegal disposal of hazardous waste. Export of hazardous waste without the permission of the receiving country. Illegal discharge of pollutants to a water of the United States.

What is not a violation of the Clean Air Act? ›

Final answer: Knowingly recovering an exempt refrigerant is not a violation of the Clean Air Act or the EPA's regulations. This is because there are exemptions and if the refrigerant falls within this classification, its recovery does not constitute a violation.

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Foster Heidenreich CPA

Last Updated:

Views: 6065

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (76 voted)

Reviews: 83% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Foster Heidenreich CPA

Birthday: 1995-01-14

Address: 55021 Usha Garden, North Larisa, DE 19209

Phone: +6812240846623

Job: Corporate Healthcare Strategist

Hobby: Singing, Listening to music, Rafting, LARPing, Gardening, Quilting, Rappelling

Introduction: My name is Foster Heidenreich CPA, I am a delightful, quaint, glorious, quaint, faithful, enchanting, fine person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.