pollution

Under Trump, EPA’s enforcement of environmental laws collapses, report finds

Environmental Protection Agency, Policy, pollution, Science, syndication, trump administration / DJ Henderson / February 7, 2026

The Environmental Protection Agency has drastically pulled back on holding polluters accountable.

Enforcement against polluters in the United States plunged in the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, a far bigger drop than in the same period of his first term, according to a new report from a watchdog group.

By analyzing a range of federal court and administrative data, the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project found that civil lawsuits filed by the US Department of Justice in cases referred by the Environmental Protection Agency dropped to just 16 in the first 12 months after Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025. That is 76 percent less than in the first year of the Biden administration.

Trump’s first administration filed 86 such cases in its first year, which was in turn a drop from the Obama administration’s 127 four years earlier.

“Our nation’s landmark environmental laws are meaningless when EPA does not enforce the rules,” Jen Duggan, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement.

The findings echo two recent analyses from the nonprofits Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and Earthjustice, which both documented dwindling environmental enforcement under Trump.

From day one of Trump’s second term, the administration has pursued an aggressive deregulatory agenda, scaling back regulations and health safeguards across the federal government that protect water, air and other parts of the environment. This push to streamline industry activities has been particularly favorable for fossil fuel companies. Trump declared an “energy emergency” immediately after his inauguration.

At the EPA, Administrator Lee Zeldin launched in March what the administration called the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history”: 31 separate efforts to roll back restrictions on air and water pollution; to hand over more authority to states, some of which have a long history of supporting lax enforcement; and to relinquish EPA’s mandate to act on climate change under the Clean Air Act.

The new report suggests the agency is also relaxing enforcement of existing law. Neither the White House nor the EPA responded to a request for comment.

A “compliance first” approach

Part of the decline in lawsuits against polluters could be due to the lack of staff to carry them out, experts say. According to an analysis from E&E News, at least a third of lawyers in the Justice Department’s environment division have left in the past year. Meanwhile, the EPA in 2025 laid off hundreds of employees who monitored pollution that could hurt human health.

Top agency officials are also directing staff to issue fewer violation notices and reduce other enforcement actions. In December, the EPA formalized a new “compliance first” enforcement policy that stresses working with suspected violators to correct problems before launching any formal action that could lead to fines or mandatory correction measures.

“Formal enforcement … is appropriate only when compliance assurance or informal enforcement is inapplicable or insufficient to achieve rapid compliance,” wrote Craig Pritzlaff, who is now a principal deputy assistant EPA administrator, in a Dec. 5 memo to all enforcement officials and regional offices.

Only in rare cases involving an immediate hazard should enforcers use traditional case tools, Pritzlaff said. “Immediate formal enforcement may be required in certain circumstances, such as when there is an emergency that presents significant harm to human health and the environment,” he wrote.

Federal agencies like the EPA, with staffs far outmatched in size compared to the vast sectors of the economy they oversee, typically have used enforcement actions not only to deal with violators but to deter other companies from breaking the law. Environmental advocates worry that without environmental cops visible on the beat, compliance will erode.

Pritzlaff joined the EPA last fall after five years heading up enforcement for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, where nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen noted that he was known as a “reluctant regulator.” Public Citizen and other advocacy groups criticized TCEQ under Pritzlaff’s leadership for its reticence to take decisive action against repeat violators.

One example: An INEOS chemical plant had racked up close to 100 violations over a decade before a 2023 explosion that sent one worker to the hospital, temporarily shut down the Houston Ship Channel and sparked a fire that burned for an hour. Public Citizen said it was told by TCEQ officials that the agency allowed violations to accumulate over the years, arguing it was more efficient to handle multiple issues in a single enforcement action.

“But that proved to be untrue, instead creating a complex backlog of cases that the agency is still struggling to resolve,” Public Citizen wrote last fall after Pritzlaff joined the EPA. “That’s not efficiency, it’s failure.”

Early last year, TCEQ fined INEOS $2.3 million for an extensive list of violations that occurred between 2016 and 2021.

“A slap on the wrist”

The EPA doesn’t always take entities to court when they violate environmental laws. At times, the agency can resolve these issues through less-formal administrative cases, which actually increased during the first eight months of Trump’s second term when compared to the same period in the Biden administration, according to the new report.

However, most of these administrative actions involved violations of requirements for risk management plans under the Clean Air Act or municipalities’ violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Trump administration did not increase administrative cases that involve pollution from industrial operations, Environmental Integrity Project spokesperson Tom Pelton said over email.

Another signal of declining enforcement: Through September of last year, the EPA issued $41 million in penalties—$8 million less than the same period in the first year of the Biden administration, after adjusting for inflation. This suggests “the Trump Administration may be letting more polluters get by with a slap on the wrist when the Administration does take enforcement action,” the report reads.

Combined, the lack of lawsuits, penalties, and other enforcement actions for environmental violations could impact communities across the country, said Erika Kranz, a senior staff attorney in the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, who was not involved in the report.

“We’ve been seeing the administration deregulate by repealing rules and extending compliance deadlines, and this decline in enforcement action seems like yet another mechanism that the administration is using to de-emphasize environmental and public health protections,” Kranz said. “It all appears to be connected, and if you’re a person in the US who is worried about your health and the health of your neighbors generally, this certainly could have effects.”

The report notes that many court cases last longer than a year, so it will take time to get a clearer sense of how environmental enforcement is changing under the Trump administration. However, the early data compiled by the Environmental Integrity Project and other nonprofits shows a clear and steep shift away from legal actions against polluters.

Historically, administrations have a “lot of leeway on making enforcement decisions,” Kranz said. But this stark of a drop could prompt lawsuits against the Trump administration, she added.

“Given these big changes and trends, you might see groups arguing that this is more than just an exercise of discretion or choosing priorities [and] this is more of an abdication of an agency’s core mission and its statutory duties,” Kranz said. “I think it’s going to be interesting to see if groups make those arguments, and if they do, how courts look at them.”

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Under Trump, EPA’s enforcement of environmental laws collapses, report finds Read More »

COVID-19 cleared the skies but also supercharged methane emissions

atmospheric science, chemistry, climate change, Covid, greenhouse gasses, methane, pandemic, pollution, Science / Beth Washington / February 6, 2026

The remaining question, though, was where all this methane was coming from in the first place. Throughout the pandemic, there was speculation that the surge might be caused by super-emitter events in the oil and gas sector, or perhaps a lack of maintenance on leaky infrastructure during lockdowns.

But the new research suggests that the source of these emissions was not what many expected.

The microbial surge

While the weakened atmospheric sink explained the bulk of the 2020 surge, it wasn’t the only factor at play. The remaining 20 percent of the growth, and an even larger portion of the growth in 2021 and 2022, came from an increase in actual emissions from the ground. To track the source of these emissions down, Peng’s team went through tons of data from satellites and various ground monitoring stations.

Methane comes in different isotopic signatures. Methane from fossil fuels like natural gas leaks or coal mines is heavier, containing a higher fraction of the stable isotope carbon-13. Conversely, methane produced by microbes found in the guts of livestock, in landfills, and most notably in wetlands, is lighter, enriched in carbon-12.

When the researchers analyzed data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration global flask network, a worldwide monitoring system tracking the chemical composition of Earth’s atmosphere, they found that the atmospheric methane during the mysterious surge was becoming significantly lighter. This was a smoking gun for biogenic sources. The surge wasn’t coming from pipes or power plants; it was coming from microbes.

La Niña came to play

The timing of the pandemic coincided with a relatively rare meteorological event. La Niña, the cool phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation that typically leads to increased rainfall in the tropics, lasted for three consecutive Northern Hemisphere winters (from 2020 to 2023). This made the early 2020s exceptionally wet.

The researchers used satellite data from the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite and sophisticated atmospheric models to trace the source of the light methane to vast wetland areas in tropical Africa and Southeast Asia. In regions like the Sudd in South Sudan and the Congo Basin, record-breaking rainfall flooded massive swaths of land. In these waterlogged, oxygen-poor environments, microbial methanogens thrived, churning out methane at an accelerated pace.

COVID-19 cleared the skies but also supercharged methane emissions Read More »

Here we go again: Retiring coal plant forced to stay open by Trump Admin

coal, department of energy, Energy, pollution, Science, Trump / Beth Washington / December 31, 2025

On Tuesday, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued a now familiar order: because of a supposed energy emergency, a coal plant scheduled for closure would be forced to remain open. This time, the order targeted one of the three units present at Craig Station in Colorado, which was scheduled to close at the end of this year. The remaining two units were expected to shut in 2028.

The supposed reason for this order is an emergency caused by a shortage of generating capacity. “The reliable supply of power from the coal plant is essential for keeping the region’s electric grid stable,” according to a statement issued by the Department of Energy. Yet the Colorado Sun notes that Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission had already analyzed the impact of its potential closure, and determined, “Craig Unit 1 is not required for reliability or resource adequacy purposes.”

The order does not require the plant to actually produce electricity; instead, it is ordered to be available in case a shortfall in production occurs. As noted in the Colorado Sun article, actual operation of the plant would potentially violate Colorado laws, which regulate airborne pollution and set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of maintaining the plant is likely to fall on the local ratepayers, who had already adjusted to the closure plans.

The use of emergency powers by the DOE is authorized under the Federal Power Act, which allows it to order the temporary connection of generation or infrastructure when the US is at war or when “an emergency exists by reason of a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy.” It is not at all clear whether “we expect demand to go up in the future,” the DOE’s current rationale, is consistent with that definition of emergency. It is also hard to see how using coal plants complies with other limits placed on the use of these emergency orders:

Here we go again: Retiring coal plant forced to stay open by Trump Admin Read More »

Big Tech may fall short of green energy targets due to proposed rule changes

big tech, carbon credits, data centers, green energy, Policy, pollution, syndication / Kelly Newman / October 21, 2025

“There’s going to be one price trend: that is you will see higher costs for certificates at low producing times of day and seasons,” said Daniel Arnesson, of the energy analytics company Veyt. Across a global portfolio, this may make it “fundamentally more expensive” to buy credits.

Amazon, Meta, Salesforce, Microsoft, and Google have all previously been among the Protocol’s disclosed financial backers, while its ongoing reform of all its accounting standards has been the subject of intense corporate lobbying.

Only a handful of companies including Google and AstraZeneca have backed the more expensive “24/7” hourly-matching and localized approach to clean energy investments that has been proposed for consultation.

A coalition that includes Meta, Amazon, and General Motors had instead argued for more flexibility in clean energy purchases, which it said could channel funds to developing countries more in need of these investments. It has also suggested a technique to account for emissions “avoided” by clean energy, which the Protocol is separately considering.

A group of attorneys-general in the US accused Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Amazon last month of using “environmental accounting gimmicks” to make claims that “appear deceptive,” while destabilizing their local grids through “skyrocketing” demand for power.

Amazon declined to comment. Microsoft, Meta, and Google did not respond to requests for comment.

The way greenhouse gas emissions are counted has been less scrutinized than traditional financial accounting. But it underpins how much the world’s largest companies pay in carbon levies in the EU, China, and elsewhere, how easily they can hit climate goals outlined to investors, and how they market themselves.

A coalition of companies including BlackRock’s Global Infrastructure Partners and energy groups ExxonMobil and Adnoc said this week it wanted to work on an improved carbon accounting framework.

Big Tech may fall short of green energy targets due to proposed rule changes Read More »

Permit for xAI’s data center blatantly violates Clean Air Act, NAACP says

AI, ai data center, ai supercomputer, clean air act, Colossus, data center, elon musk, environmental justice, grok, Memphis, Policy, pollution, supercomputer, xAI / Shannon Garcia / July 17, 2025

Evidence suggests health department gave preferential treatment to xAI, NAACP says.

Local students speak in opposition to a proposal by Elon Musk’s xAI to run gas turbines at its data center during a public comment meeting hosted by the Shelby County Health Department at Fairley High School on xAI’s permit application to use gas turbines for a new data center in Memphis, TN on April 25, 2025. Credit: The Washington Post / Contributor | The Washington Post

xAI continues to face backlash over its Memphis data center, as the NAACP joined groups today appealing the issuance of a recently granted permit that the groups say will allow xAI to introduce major new sources of pollutants without warning at any time.

The battle over the gas turbines powering xAI’s data center began last April when thermal imaging seemed to show that the firm was lying about dozens of seemingly operational turbines that could be a major source of smog-causing pollution. By June, the NAACP got involved, notifying the Shelby County Health Department (SCHD) of its intent to sue xAI to force Elon Musk’s AI company to engage with community members in historically Black neighborhoods who are believed to be most affected by the pollution risks.

But the NAACP’s letter seemingly did nothing to stop the SCHD from granting the permits two weeks later on July 2, as well as exemptions that xAI does not appear to qualify for, the appeal noted. Now, the NAACP—alongside environmental justice groups; the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC); and Young, Gifted and Green—is appealing. The groups are hoping the Memphis and Shelby County Air Pollution Control Board will revoke the permit and block the exemptions, agreeing that the SCHD’s decisions were fatally flawed, violating the Clean Air Act and local laws.

SCHD’s permit granted xAI permission to operate 15 gas turbines at the Memphis data center, while the SELC’s imaging showed that xAI was potentially operating as many as 24. Prior to the permitting, xAI was accused of operating at least 35 turbines without the best-available pollution controls.

In their appeal, the NAACP and other groups argued that the SCHD put xAI profits over Black people’s health, granting unlawful exemptions while turning a blind eye to xAI’s operations, which allegedly started in 2024 but were treated as brand new in 2025.

Significantly, the groups claimed that the health department “improperly ignored” the prior turbine activity and the additional turbines still believed to be on site, unlawfully deeming some of the turbines as “temporary” and designating xAI’s facility a new project with no prior emissions sources. Had xAI’s data center been categorized as a modification to an existing major source of pollutants, the appeal said, xAI would’ve faced stricter emissions controls and “robust ambient air quality impacts assessments.”

And perhaps more concerningly, the exemptions granted could allow xAI—or any other emerging major sources of pollutants in the area—to “install and operate any number of new polluting turbines at any time without any written approval from the Health Department, without any public notice or public participation, and without pollution controls,” the appeal said.

The SCHD and xAI did not respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Officials accused of cherry-picking Clean Air Act

The appeal called out the SCHD for “tellingly” omitting key provisions of the Clean Air Act that allegedly undermined the department’s “position” when explaining why xAI qualified for exemptions. Groups also suggested that xAI was getting preferential treatment, providing as evidence a side-by-side comparison of a permit with stricter emissions requirements granted to a natural gas power plant, issued within months of granting xAI’s permit with only generalized emissions requirements.

“The Department cannot cherry pick which parts of the federal Clean Air Act it believes are relevant,” the appeal said, calling the SCHD’s decisions a “blatant” misrepresentation of the federal law while pointing to statements from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that allegedly “directly” contradict the health department’s position.

For some Memphians protesting xAI’s facility, it seems “indisputable” that xAI’s turbines fall outside of the Clean Air Act requirements, whether they’re temporary or permanent, and if that’s true, it is “undeniable” that the activity violates the law. They’re afraid the health department is prioritizing xAI’s corporate gains over their health by “failing to establish enforceable emission limits” on the data center, which powers what xAI hypes as the world’s largest AI supercomputer, Colossus, the engine behind its controversial Grok models.

Rather than a minor source, as the SCHD designated the facility, Memphians think the data center is already a major source of pollutants, with its permitted turbines releasing, at minimum, 900 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per year. That’s more than three times the threshold that the Clean Air Act uses to define a major source: “one that ’emits, or has the potential to emit,’ at least 250 tons of NOx per year,” the appeal noted. Further, the allegedly overlooked additional turbines that were on site at xAI when permitting was granted “have the potential to emit at least 560 tons of NOx per year.”

But so far, Memphians appear stuck with the SCHD’s generalized emissions requirements and xAI’s voluntary emission limits, which the appeal alleged “fall short” of the stringent limits imposed if xAI were forced to use best-available control technologies. Fixing that is “especially critical given the ongoing and worsening smog problem in Memphis,” environmental groups alleged, which is an area that has “failed to meet EPA’s air quality standard for ozone for years.”

xAI also apparently conducted some “air dispersion modeling” to appease critics. But, again, that process was not comparable to the more rigorous analysis that would’ve been required to get what the EPA calls a Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit, the appeal said.

Groups want xAI’s permit revoked

To shield Memphians from ongoing health risks, the NAACP and environmental justice groups have urged the Memphis and Shelby County Air Pollution Control Board to act now.

Memphis is a city already grappling with high rates of emergency room visits and deaths from asthma, with cancer rates four times the national average. Residents have already begun wearing masks, avoiding the outdoors, and keeping their windows closed since xAI’s data center moved in, the appeal noted. Residents remain “deeply concerned” about feared exposure to alleged pollutants that can “cause a variety of adverse health effects,” including “increased risk of lung infection, aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis, and increased frequency of asthma attack,” as well as certain types of cancer.

In an SELC press release, LaTricea Adams, CEO and President of Young, Gifted and Green, called the SCHD’s decisions on xAI’s permit “reckless.”

“As a Black woman born and raised in Memphis, I know firsthand how industry harms Black communities while those in power cower away from justice,” Adams said. “The Shelby County Health Department needs to do their job to protect the health of ALL Memphians, especially those in frontline communities… that are burdened with a history of environmental racism, legacy pollution, and redlining.”

Groups also suspect xAI is stockpiling dozens of gas turbines to potentially power a second facility nearby—which could lead to over 90 turbines in operation. To get that facility up and running, Musk claimed that he will be “copying and pasting” the process for launching the first data center, SELC’s press release said.

Groups appealing have asked the board to revoke xAI’s permits and declare that xAI’s turbines do not qualify for exemptions from the Clean Air Act or other laws and that all permits for gas turbines must meet strict EPA standards. If successful, groups could force xAI to redo the permitting process “pursuant to the major source requirements of the Clean Air Act” and local law. At the very least, they’ve asked the board to remand the permit to the health department to “reconsider its determinations.”

Unless the pollution control board intervenes, Memphians worry xAI’s “unlawful conduct risks being repeated and evading review,” with any turbines removed easily brought back with “no notice” to residents if xAI’s exemptions remain in place.

“Nothing is stopping xAI from installing additional unpermitted turbines at any time to meet its widely-publicized demand for additional power,” the appeal said.

NAACP’s director of environmental justice, Abre’ Conner, confirmed in the SELC’s press release that his group and community members “have repeatedly shared concerns that xAI is causing a significant increase in the pollution of the air Memphians breathe.”

“The health department should focus on people’s health—not on maximizing corporate gain,” Conner said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Permit for xAI’s data center blatantly violates Clean Air Act, NAACP says Read More »

Air quality problems spur $200 million in funds to cut pollution at ports

carbon emissions, climate change, inflation reduction act, Policy, pollution, Science, syndication / Shannon Garcia / November 11, 2024

Diesel equipment will be replaced with hydrogen- or electric-power gear.

Raquel Garcia has been fighting for years to clean up the air in her neighborhood southwest of downtown Detroit.

Living a little over a mile from the Ambassador Bridge, which thousands of freight trucks cross every day en route to the Port of Detroit, Garcia said she and her neighbors are frequently cleaning soot off their homes.

“You can literally write your name in it,” she said. “My house is completely covered.”

Her neighborhood is part of Wayne County, which is home to heavy industry, including steel plants and major car manufacturers, and suffers from some of the worst air quality in Michigan. In its 2024 State of the Air report, the American Lung Association named Wayne County one of the “worst places to live” in terms of annual exposure to fine particulate matter pollution, or PM2.5.

But Detroit, and several other Midwest cities with major shipping ports, could soon see their air quality improve as port authorities receive hundreds of millions of dollars to replace diesel equipment with cleaner technologies like solar power and electric vehicles.

Last week, the Biden administration announced $3 billion in new grants from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Ports program, which aims to slash carbon emissions and reduce air pollution at US shipping ports. More than $200 million of that funding will go to four Midwestern states that host ports along the Great Lakes: Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana.

The money, which comes from the Inflation Reduction Act, will not only be used to replace diesel-powered equipment and vehicles, but also to install clean energy systems and charging stations, take inventory of annual port emissions, and set plans for reducing them. It will also fund a feasibility study for establishing a green hydrogen fuel hub along the Great Lakes.

The EPA estimates that those changes will, nationwide, reduce carbon pollution in the first 10 years by more than 3 million metric tons, roughly the equivalent of taking 600,000 gasoline-powered cars off the road. The agency also projects reduced emissions of nitrous oxide and PM2.5—both of which can cause serious, long-term health complications—by about 10,000 metric tons and about 180 metric tons, respectively, during that same time period.

“Our nation’s ports are critical to creating opportunity here in America, offering good-paying jobs, moving goods, and powering our economy,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in the agency’s press release announcing the funds. “Delivering cleaner technologies and resources to US ports will slash harmful air and climate pollution while protecting people who work in and live nearby ports communities.”

Garcia, who runs the community advocacy nonprofit Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision, said she’s “really excited” to see the Port of Detroit getting those funds, even though it’s just a small part of what’s needed to clean up the city’s air pollution.

“We care about the air,” she said. “There’s a lot of kids in the neighborhood where I live.”

Jumpstarting the transition to cleaner technology

Nationwide, port authorities in 27 states and territories tapped the Clean Ports funding, which they’ll use to buy more than 1,500 units of cargo-handling equipment, such as forklifts and cranes, 1,000 heavy-duty trucks, 10 locomotives, and 20 seafaring vessels, all of which will be powered by electricity or green hydrogen, which doesn’t emit CO2 when burned.

In the Midwest, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority in Ohio were awarded about $95 million each from the program, the Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority in Michigan was awarded $25 million, and the Ports of Indiana will receive $500,000.

Mark Schrupp, executive director of the Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority, said the funding for his agency will be used to help port operators at three terminals purchase new electric forklifts, cranes, and boat motors, among other zero-emission equipment. The money will also pay for a new solar array that will reduce energy consumption for port facilities, as well as 11 new electric vehicle charging stations.

“This money is helping those [port] businesses make the investment in this clean technology, which otherwise is sometimes five or six times the cost of a diesel-powered equipment,” he said, noting that the costs of clean technologies are expected to fall significantly in the coming years as manufacturers scale up production. “It also exposes them to the potential savings over time—full maintenance costs and other things that come from having the dirtier technology in place.”

Schrupp said that the new equipment will slash the Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority’s overall carbon emissions by more than 8,600 metric tons every year, roughly a 30 percent reduction.

Carly Beck, senior manager of planning, environment and information systems for the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, said its new equipment will reduce the Port of Cleveland’s annual carbon emissions by roughly 1,000 metric tons, or about 40 percent of the emissions tied to the port’s operations. The funding will also pay for two electric tug boats and the installation of solar panels and battery storage on the port’s largest warehouse, she added.

In 2022, Beck said, the Port of Cleveland took an emissions inventory, which found that cargo-handling equipment, building energy use, and idling ships were the port’s biggest sources of carbon emissions. Docked ships would run diesel generators for power as they unloaded, she said, but with the new infrastructure, the cargo-handling equipment and idling ships can draw power from a 2-megawatt solar power system with battery storage.

“We’re essentially creating a microgrid at the port,” she said.

Improving the air for disadvantaged communities

The Clean Ports funding will also be a boon for people like Garcia, who live near a US shipping port.

Shipping ports are notorious for their diesel pollution, which research has shown disproportionately affects poor communities of color. And most, if not all, of the census tracts surrounding the Midwest ports are deemed “disadvantaged communities” by the federal government. The EPA uses a number of factors, including income level and exposure to environmental harms, to determine whether a community is “disadvantaged.”

About 10,000 trucks pass through the Port of Detroit every day, Schrupp said, which helps to explain why residents of Southwest Detroit and the neighboring cities of Ecorse and River Rouge, which sit adjacent to Detroit ports, breathe the state’s dirtiest air.

“We have about 50,000 residents within a few miles of the port, so those communities will definitely benefit,” he said. “This is a very industrialized area.”

Burning diesel or any other fossil fuel produces nitrous oxide or PM2.5, and research has shown that prolonged exposure to high levels of those pollutants can lead to serious health complications, including lung disease and premature death. The Detroit-Wayne County Port Authority estimates that the new port equipment will cut nearly 9 metric tons of PM2.5 emissions and about 120 metric tons of nitrous oxide emissions each year.

Garcia said she’s also excited that some of the Detroit grants will be used to establish workforce training programs, which will show people how to use the new technologies and showcase career opportunities at the ports. Her area is gentrifying quickly, Garcia said, so it’s heartening to see the city and port authority taking steps to provide local employment opportunities.

Beck said that the Port of Cleveland is also surrounded by a lot of heavy industry and that the census tracts directly adjacent to the port are all deemed “disadvantaged” by federal standards.

“We’re trying to be good neighbors and play our part,” she said, “to make it a more pleasant environment.”

Kristoffer Tigue is a staff writer for Inside Climate News, covering climate issues in the Midwest. He previously wrote the twice-weekly newsletter Today’s Climate and helped lead ICN’s national coverage on environmental justice. His work has been published in Reuters, Scientific American, Mother Jones, HuffPost, and many more. Tigue holds a master’s degree in journalism from the Missouri School of Journalism.

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

Air quality problems spur $200 million in funds to cut pollution at ports Read More »

EPA seeks to cut “Cancer Alley” pollutants

carcinogens, clean air act, EPA, Policy, pollution, Science, Sustainability, Toxicology / Kelly Newman / April 9, 2024

Out of the air —

Chemical plants will have to monitor how much is escaping and stop leaks.

John Timmer – Apr 9, 2024 7: 42 pm UTC

Image of a large industrial facility on the side of a river. — Enlarge / An oil refinery in Louisiana. Facilities such as this have led to a proliferation of petrochemical plants in the area.

On Tuesday, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced new rules that are intended to cut emissions of two chemicals that have been linked to elevated incidence of cancer: ethylene oxide and chloroprene. While production and use of these chemicals takes place in a variety of locations, they’re particularly associated with an area of petrochemical production in Louisiana that has become known as “Cancer Alley.”

The new regulations would require chemical manufacturers to monitor the emissions at their facilities and take steps to repair any problems that result in elevated emissions. Despite extensive evidence linking these chemicals to elevated risk of cancer, industry groups are signaling their opposition to these regulations, and the EPA has seen two previous attempts at regulation set aside by courts.

Dangerous stuff

The two chemicals at issue are primarily used as intermediates in the manufacture of common products. Chloroprene, for example, is used for the production of neoprene, a synthetic rubber-like substance that’s probably familiar from products like insulated sleeves and wetsuits. It’s a four-carbon chain with two double-bonds that allow for polymerization and an attached chlorine that alters its chemical properties.

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), chloroprene “is a mutagen and carcinogen in animals and is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Given that cancers are driven by DNA damage, any mutagen would be “reasonably anticipated” to drive the development of cancer. Beyond that, it appears to be pretty nasty stuff, with the NCI noting that “exposure to this substance causes damage to the skin, lungs, CNS, kidneys, liver and depression of the immune system.”

The NCI’s take on Ethylene Oxide is even more definitive, with the Institute placing it on its list of cancer-causing substances. The chemical is very simple, with two carbons that are linked to each other directly, and also linked via an oxygen atom, which makes the molecule look a bit like a triangle. This configuration allows the molecule to participate in a broad range of reactions that break one of the oxygen bonds, making it useful in the production of a huge range of chemicals. Its reactivity also makes it useful for sterilizing items such as medical equipment.

Its sterilization function works through causing damage to DNA, which again makes it prone to causing cancers.

In addition to these two chemicals, the EPA’s new regulations will target a number of additional airborne pollutants, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride, all of which have similar entries at the NCI.

Despite the extensive record linking these chemicals to cancer, The New York Times quotes the US Chamber of Commerce, a pro-industry group, as saying that “EPA should not move forward with this rule-making based on the current record because there remains significant scientific uncertainty.”

A history of exposure

The petrochemical industry is the main source of these chemicals, so their release is associated with areas where the oil and gas industry has a major presence; the EPA notes that the regulations will target sources in Delaware, New Jersey, and the Ohio River Valley. But the primary focus will be on chemical plants in Texas and Louisiana. These include the area that has picked up the moniker Cancer Alley due to a high incidence of the disease in a stretch along the Mississippi River with a large concentration of chemical plants.

As is the case with many examples of chemical pollution, the residents of Cancer Alley are largely poor and belong to minority groups. As a result, the EPA had initially attempted to regulate the emissions under a civil rights provision of the Clean Air Act, but that has been bogged down due to lawsuits.

The new regulations simply set limits on permissible levels of release at what’s termed the “fencelines” of the facilities where these chemicals are made, used, or handled. If levels exceed an annual limit, the owners and operators “must find the source of the pollution and make repairs.” This gets rid of previous exemptions for equipment startup, shutdown, and malfunctions; those exemptions had been held to violate the Clean Air Act in a separate lawsuit.

The EPA estimates that the sites subject to regulation will see their collective emissions of these chemicals drop by nearly 80 percent, which works out to be 54 tons of ethylene oxide, 14 tons of chloroprene, and over 6,000 tons of the other pollutants. That in turn will reduce the cancer risk from these toxins by 96 percent among those subjected to elevated exposures. Collectively, the chemicals subject to these regulations also contribute to smog, so these reductions will have an additional health impact by reducing its levels as well.

While the EPA says that “these emission reductions will yield significant reductions in lifetime cancer risk attributable to these air pollutants,” it was unable to come up with an estimate of the financial benefits that will result from that reduction. By contrast, it estimates that the cost of compliance will end up being approximately $150 million annually. “Most of the facilities covered by the final rule are owned by large corporations,” the EPA notes. “The cost of implementing the final rule is less than one percent of their annual national sales.”

This sort of cost-benefit analysis is a required step during the formulation of Clean Air Act regulations, so it’s worth taking a step back and considering what’s at stake here: the EPA is basically saying that companies that work with significant amounts of carcinogens need to take stronger steps to make sure that they don’t use the air people breathe as a dumping ground for them.

Unsurprisingly, The New York Times quotes a neoprene manufacturer that the EPA is currently suing over its chloroprene emissions as claiming the new regulations are “draconian.”

EPA seeks to cut “Cancer Alley” pollutants Read More »