Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

The Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to define “hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)” that may pose acute health hazards, and to impose regulations to reduce those hazards. Controls include permits for “major sources” of HAPs based on “Maximum Achievable Control Technologies (MACT),” and lesser controls for non-major “area sources.” Effective September 10, 2024 EPA has reinstated a policy that an emission source that met major source criteria at the time an applicable MACT became effective is “once in, always in” – even if a source makes binding changes reducing its “potential to emit” below the applicable major source threshold, it still cannot formally requalify as a less-regulated area source. This policy was in force from 1995 until EPA reversed it in January 2018 to allow full reclassification. EPA subsequently codified this approach in a rule issued in 2020. However, EPA has now revised that rule to reinstate “once in, always in.” The rest of this note summarizes CAA requirements for HAP sources, and the latest change. 

As the 2024 Presidential election enters its final stages, both major parties have published their election platforms. The Democrats have published a total of 91 pages covering all their promises, and the Republicans have published 16 pages. In 2020, the Democrats also published 91 pages, while the Republicans instead adopted a resolution promising continuity with ongoing Trump administration priorities (I wrote about the 2020 pronouncements HERE ). The remainder of this note summarizes the environmental elements in both parties’ 2024 platforms. Both documents conform to the parties’ general priorities, with the Democrats emphasizing continuing and expanding environmental policies of the most recent years while the Republicans promise to reduce regulatory burdens in line with returning to the policies of their most recent administration.

On September 5, New York’s governor Kathy Hochul signed the Retail Worker Safety Act (A8947-C/S8358-C) to require employers to take steps to protect employees in retail stores from workplace violence (NY Labor Law sec. 27-e). The new law assigns the New York Department of Labor (NYDOL) to develop model policy and training documents for use by employers. Most requirements are effective as of March 4, 2025. These retail workplace violence prevention (WVP) requirements are comparable to public sector employer requirements in place since 2007 (NY Labor Law sec. 27-b), which are also administered and enforced by NYDOL. The rest of this note describes these new requirements. 

While the world adapts to the ongoing presence of COVID-19 and its hazards, other potential pandemic diseases continue to cause concerns. One example is avian influenza, also known as bird flu. In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) note that avian influenza H5N1 was first seen in the U.S. in migratory birds in 2015, and in agricultural poultry stock beginning in 2022. Since then, a few mammal infections have been confirmed, and in April 2024, a dairy farm worker tested positive for avian influenza A (H5N1). This history confirms a slow expansion of pathways to infection, and at-risk species extending to include humans. There have not yet been confirmed human-to-human transmissions, which could trigger the next pandemic if they began to proliferate (just as COVID-19 did a few years ago). As these concerns rise, in August 2024 OSHA gathered and updated safety information about Bird Flu, which I summarize below. 

On August 30, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published its proposal to adopt a new Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Standard (29 CFR 1910.148) covering most OSHA-regulated employers. This rulemaking expands OSHA’s ongoing efforts to protect workers against heat hazards; previously, the agency has emphasized that known heat hazards trigger the Employer’s General Duty Clause (I wrote about OSHA’s National Emphasis Program for both outdoor and indoor workplaces HERE ).  

Canada has just imposed restrictions against false or misleading statements made in marketing or other materials regarding the environmental impacts and benefits of goods and services -- “greenwashing.” These provisions were adopted as amendments to the Competition Act, enacted as part of the Government’s omnibus “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023” (Bill C-59), which received royal Assent on June 20.  

In July, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the fifth edition of its periodic Climate Change Indicators report, focusing on Indicators related to the human health and societal impacts of climate change. While this 96-page report provides broad policy discussions, it applies data which calibrate ongoing changes that organizations can use to support evaluations of the possible impacts of these changes on their ongoing activities and future prospects. The remainder of this note summarizes EPA’s latest indicators, and how they can be relevant to organizational planning and decision-making.

The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) added procedures for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate risks presented by existing chemicals using the latest scientific information – including information developed after a chemical entered use in the US. Based on these reviews, EPA is to update its regulatory requirements, ranging from labeling-only through use restrictions up to and including bans from further distribution and use. (I summarized these review requirements HERE ).  Beginning in November 2019, EPA regularly announces new chemical reviews, and subsequently the results of these reviews. (I wrote about the first review announcement HERE ). On July 25, 2024 EPA published a formal proposal to review 5 additional chemicals for designation as High-Priority Substance subject to strict controls under TSCA. The rest of this note identifies these proposed chemicals.

This summer has again brought record-breaking heat to parts of North America. Outdoor work in the summer sun can lead to heat illness, as can indoor work in spaces that aren’t sufficiently insulated or cooled. Since 2005, California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) administers detailed regulatory requirements for outdoor workplaces; other jurisdictions have since adopted similar requirements (I wrote about these HERE). Indoor workplaces have been considered, too (the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) initiated a National Emphasis Program for both outdoor and indoor workplaces in 2021, which I wrote about HERE). On July 23, 2024, California adopted new requirements governing indoor workplaces (8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 3396), which I discuss in the rest of this note.

The federal Superfund law (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980) defines broad categories of parties who might be deemed responsible for chemical contamination (“responsible parties”) and liable to pay for some or all the costs o cleaning up. Nearly 45 years after CERCLA was first enacted, a federal Court of Appeals has confirmed for the first time that a party that “arranges for” disposal can be liable for cleanup costs

, even if there’s no evidence that the party knew that the materials being disposed were hazardous. Although this ruling is consistent with the statutory text and decades of practice, it’s still the first formal ruling by an Appeals court (68^th Street Site Work Group v. Alban Tractor Co.). The rest of this note summarizes “arranger-for” liability, and this case.