Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

Among its many provisions, the 2016 Amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require EPA to compile and report an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States. (I’ve written about programmatic changes to TSCA by the “Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” here, here, and here.) EPA was directed to publish an initial inventory, covering elemental mercury and mercury compounds, in April 2017, and to publish updates at least every three years thereafter.

In November 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted significant amendments to the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard (WPS) that EPA administers using its Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authority -- FIFRA provides national pesticide regulation, and the WPS is intended to ensure that workers know how to protect themselves when applying pesticides. EPA set compliance deadlines for most revised provisions on January 2, 2017 or January 2, 2018, but left the compliance deadline for expanded training open until the agency could develop and publish training materials. On June 22, 2018, EPA published notice that these materials are ready, giving employers until December 19 to upgrade their training programs accordingly.

In the last week before President Obama left office, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a multi-year review of its Accidental Release Prevention (ARP) program for toxic catastrophe prevention, and adopted significant expansions of ARP requirements (I wrote about them here). EPA proposed ARP revisions in March 2016 (I blogged about them here). Then, when President Trump took office, EPA reversed course, repeatedly deferring the effective date of those revisions while the agency reviewed them. In May 2018 EPA completed its review, and published a proposal in the Federal Register to rescind almost all these expansions and return ARP requirement to those in place before 2017. EPA also included an alternative proposal that retained a few more elements, and requested public comment on both versions no later than July 30, 2018.

On May 30, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) repealed a number of regulations governing recycling of secondary materials, which EPA adopted as parts of a major rulemaking effective July 2015, but which were rejected by a federal court in decisions issued in July 2017 and March 2018. These rules apply the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by creating exemptions from the “Definition of Solid Waste” to define a number of potentially hazardous wastes as “hazardous secondary materials”, and to establish special rules to allow generators and qualified third parties to recycle and recover qualifying materials. (I summarized the larger 2015 rules here). The remainder of this note identifies EPA’s latest changes.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions, and incorporate this information into their decisions. Agencies have each adopted their own review regulations, which focus on the search for “significant impacts,” and on alternatives and mitigation measures that will allow an agency to accomplish its goals. This all sounds good, but what does it all mean? For example, which impacts might be “significant?” How many alternatives should be considered, with what attendant costs and benefits?

On May 9, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Chris Pruitt issued a policy memo recasting his agency’s basic approach to review and revision of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQSs) – EPA’s broadest and most basic targets for national pollution levels. He entitles it a “Back-to-Basics” Process for Reviewing [NAAQSs]”, echoing the phrase he used last year to recalibrate the agency’s relationships with the public and its various stakeholders. (I blogged about this general policy here).

Growing up, my mother was instrumental in our family of eight taking camping trips each summer. By the time I was in 4th grade, I had been in 42 states, Canada and Mexico, and had never been on a plane. We explored, hiked, and camped in state parks, national parks, and forests, traversing the country, with a pop-up camper and a paper road map to navigate our journeys.

Many of the items that make their way into your home are designed with only one purpose in mind.  After you’ve opened up a bottle of champagne, the cage and cork become destined for the landfill.  Once you’ve eaten all of the fruit out of the colourful plastic mesh bag, it can’t be recycled and it’s pushed into the trash bin.  You can sit around getting blue about all the waste that abounds or you can do what I do and give those items a second chance at life.

On April 2, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it has completed its “midterm evaluation” of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards for cars and light trucks for model years 2022-2025, has decided to withdraw standards agreed to between the Obama Administration and California during 2016, and will conduct additional rulemaking to consider less stringent standards. This review began in March 2017, soon after President Trump appointed Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator with a mandate to reduce regulation. California, which has special authority under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), is leading a coalition of states that has already sued to stop the change. In response to this push-back, President Trump has ordered federal agencies to negotiate with California to seek a compromise.

On April 30, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule (40 CFR part 30) to “strengthen transparency in regulatory science” by requiring the agency to make the data and models used for significant regulatory decisions available for public and peer review. Like most things regarding EPA these days, the proposal has generated significant controversy – based to a large extent to whether the commenter puts more trust in the proposed system and today’s EPA, or in the existing system and yesterday’s EPA. In the remainder of this blog I’ll discuss what’s nominally involved, and possible adjustments to narrow the opportunities for manipulation by tomorrow’s EPA.