Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Research Articles

International Consortium to Advance Cross-Species Extrapolation of the Effects of Chemicals in Regulatory Toxicology.

International Consortium to Advance Cross-Species Extrapolation of the Effects of Chemicals in Regulatory Toxicology.

US EPA selects air pollution advisers

After purging its members in late March, US Environmental Protection Agency administrator Michael Regan has reconstituted the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Four of the seven members, whom Regan selected from a pool of 100 candidates, have previously served on the panel. They include two scientists who were on the committee when Regan removed all its members and directed the EPA staff to assemble a better blend of expertise than the panel had during the previous administration . The committee now consists of six academics and a state air pollution regulator. This mix reflects the composition of CASAC for decades before the EPA under the Trump administration banned academics as advisers if they received agency grants. A federal court struck down the ban last year. In addition, Regan is resurrecting a group of scientific advisers that the Trump administration eliminated. That group has expertise in science around particulate matter,

EPA revives dicamba registration

On Oct. 27, US Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler announced that the agency will approve new, 5-year registrations for two dicamba herbicide products: Bayer’s XtendiMax an...

In Defense of the Weight-of-Evidence Approach to Literature Review in the Integrated Science Assessment

In Defense of the Weight-of-Evidence Approach to Literature Review in the Integrated Science Assessment

USEPA Develops National Water Reuse Action Plan

“Water reuse represents a major opportunity to support our nation's communities and economy by bolstering safe and reliable water supplies for human consumption, agriculture, business, industry, recreation, and healthy ecosystems.”—US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler

Engaging Local Policy Makers in Public Health: Current Perceptions and Future Directions.

Engaging Local Policy Makers in Public Health: Current Perceptions and Future Directions.

Regulatory Science Transparency: Assessment Of Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Rule on Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science

In its proposed rule, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires transparency in certain areas of regulatory science. The proposed rule mandates public access to the details of studies that address dose response and models. This paper is the result of a study conducted by graduate students at Georgetown University. The study relied upon a specific process for selecting a small number from an exceptionally large number of responses to study the subject. The evaluation of the responses was largely based on Best Available Regulatory Science (BARS) and Metrics for Evaluation of Regulatory Science Claims derived from BARS. The results of the study indicate that opposition to the EPA's proposed rule is largely based on the claim that its implementation would eliminate key studies that contain confidential data from consideration during the regulatory process. Although the proposed rule would allow exemptions from the public access requirements, there is opposition to making exemptions available at the discretion of the EPA Administrator. The study concluded that a regulatory science process called "controlled transparency" would be a reasonable solution to compliance with transparency requirements while protecting confidential information.https://doi.org/10.21423/jrs-v07moghissi

Editorial—The Role of Environmental Economics in U.S. Environmental Policy

AbstractThis Editorial, written by a former United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator under President Barack Obama, is adapted from the author's keynote address on June 25, ...

Christie Whitman on Republicans and climate change

Former Environmental Protection Agency administrator and New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman has long been known as an environmentally conscious Republican. In recent years, she’s re-entered the...

The role of leadership in depleting institutional ethos: the case of Scott Pruitt and the Environmental Protection Agency

By borrowing theoretical insights from institutional theory and environmental and military sociology, the paper examines a relatively unobservable yet deep impact of Scott Pruitt’s tenure as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator: changes in the institutional ethos of the EPA. Institutional ethos refers to the intangible and invisible fabric of the institution—its “spirit”—and implies the interconnection between moral priorities and emotions. The paper argues that Pruitt’s actions have been depleting the value dimension of the institutional ethos by devaluing the EPA’s mission, and depleting the emotive dimension of the institutional ethos by demoralizing EPA employees. The paper adds to the growing literature on the implications of the ongoing changes to US environmental policy and practice under the Trump Administration, and the counter-actions initiated by those opposing the current policy priorities. This paper serves as a call for further empirical research to uncover relatively intangible impacts of the Trump presidency on the EPA and other environmental institutions. More broadly, the paper intervenes in the scholarly discussion about the moral implications of institutional changes, especially ones exerted by political processes, and the impact of these changes on the character and integrity of institutions.

EPA proposes TSCA user fees

AbstractWe all knew it was coming, and the proposal has finally arrived. On February 8, 2018, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule regarding user fees for the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). As amended by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, TSCA provides the EPA the authority to levy fees on certain chemical manufacturers, including importers and processors, to “provide a sustainable source of funding to defray resources that are available for implementation of new responsibilities under the amended law” (EPA, 2018a, p. 1). The EPA states in its press release that these fees: would go toward developing risk evaluations for existing chemicals; collecting and reviewing toxicity and exposure data and other information; reviewing Confidential Business Information (CBI); and, making determinations in a timely and transparent manner with respect to the safety of new chemicals before they enter the marketplace. (EPA, , p. 1)This column summarizes the proposal and explains why it is significant.

DOCUMERICA and the Power of Environmental History

DOCUMERICA and the Power of Environmental History

United States of Superfund

Nearly 40 years ago, a dump oozing chemicals in upstate New York triggered a state of emergency, and Love Canal became synonymous with hazardous waste in the U.S. The toxic site made headlines, and hundreds of families were evacuated from a 10-block area surrounding the canal. The plight of the community led Congress to create a federal program called Superfund that pays for cleanup of contaminated sites. Decades later, government leaders are asking what’s taking so long. “Most Americans aren’t aware that there are more than 1,300 Superfund sites across the country,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt tells C&EN in a statement. Some have been on the Superfund list for almost 40 years, he notes. “That’s unacceptable.” The 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act, which is commonly referred to as the Superfund law, created a framework for regulating and managing toxic waste sites. The law established liability

Protecting Human Health and Stewarding the Environment: An Essay Exploring Values in U.S. Environmental Protection Law

The purpose of this conference is to explore “the relationship between environmental protection and public health and how it should inform our efforts to become better stewards of the environment.” No one would disagree with the assertion that during the last forty years of federal environmental protection, air and water quality have improved and led to concomitant improvements in human health. Exploring the contours of this “relationship,” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy said in her keynote speech that “[t]he thing is, the word ‘relationship’ is too neutral. The link between the health of our planet and the health of our families is inextricable. The quality of our environment dictates the quality of our well-being, and our lives.” An article in the New England Journal of Medicine—a publication aimed at clinicians and not public health practitioners or environmental regulators— affirms the Administrator’s assertion about the environment-human health relationship: based on four decades of air quality monitoring mandated by the Clean Air Act, U.S. life span has increased by 0.4 to 0.8 years due to government-mandated reductions in particulate matter. By setting human health-based standards prescribed by legislative language and then enforcing them, environmental protection has clearly improved human health by limiting the amount of pollution that may enter our natural environment. With this starting premise, our panel contributes to the conference discussion by focusing on the ethical underpinnings of why we enact laws to protect, conserve, and restore the environment. These environmental values, usually characterized as human-centrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism, separate the human, fauna, and flora at play when making law to protect “the environment.” To debate whether the current public healthbased approach in U.S. environmental law strikes the right balance between protecting humans and the environment that surrounds us, our panel was specifically asked: “Should environmental laws focus even more than they already do on public health benefits, so that we might reclaim bi-partisan support for environmental protection efforts? Or have we focused on human health to the detriment of preserving bio-diversity and healthy ecosystems?”

New EPA Director Calls Climate Change a Fundamental Economic Challenge

“Climate change isn't an environmental issue; it is a fundamental economic challenge for us,” said Regina “Gina” McCarthy, the newly confirmed administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), during a 30 July speech at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. In this first public address since her confirmation on 18 July as the 13th EPA administrator, McCarthy insisted that protecting the environment makes good economic sense.

RTCR? To(tal) Coliform or Not To(tal) Coliform—That Is the Question

The Bard himself, William Shakespeare, is likely rolling over in his grave about my revision to the famous line from Hamlet. But I wanted to get everyone's attention about the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) that was signed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administrator Dec. 20, 2012. The revisions to this regulation will affect every water system, large or small, surface water or groundwater. As a result, systems need to understand these revisions and get prepared now, even though the effective date (i.e., when systems have to be in compliance with the RTCR) is not until Apr. 1, 2016.

Key Obama officials leave administration

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is one of the latest members of the Obama administration to announce that he is leaving his position near the start of President Obama's second term in office. Salazar, who has served as interior secretary since January 2009, intends to leave the department by the end of March, the department noted on 16 January. Salazar joins a number of other key officials who are planning to leave the administration. They include Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator Jane Lubchenco, and U.S. Geological Survey director Marcia McNutt.

Tough choices in proposed budget for Environmental Protection Agency

President Obama's proposed budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year (FY) 2013 is $8.34 billion, a 1.2% decrease from the agency's 2012 enacted budget. “This budget is focused on fulfilling EPA's core mission to protect health and the environment for millions of American families. It demonstrates the fiscal responsibility called for at this moment, while still supporting clean air, healthy waters, and innovative safeguards that are essential to an America built to last,” said EPA administrator Lisa Jackson in a 13 February briefing announcing the budget proposal. Balancing tight funding environments with EPA's goals “has required taking a step back from programs we have worked on for years, programs were we have had great success,” she said. “There are difficult choices throughout this budget, but they enable us to do what is required for our immediate priorities as well as challenges down the road.”

New clean air efforts face tough challenges, say senators and former EPA administrators

With the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coming under repeated attack from some members of Congress and others for perceived heavy‐handed regulatory actions, two moderate U.S. senators and two former EPA administrators recently noted the need for continued measures to improve air quality. However, they also acknowledged the difficulty in moving forward with new legislative efforts to revise the federal Clean Air Act to further reduce air pollution in the current polarized political climate. “Nobody who wants to see constructive changes [to the act] would dare touch it or propose it in the current climate,” said former EPA administrator William Reilly at a 23 January forum sponsored by the World Resources Institute. Reilly, who served as EPA administrator from 1989 to 1992, noted that bipartisan congressional support had been key to addressing many environmental problems up until the mid‐1990s.

Climate Change, the Clean Air Act, and Industrial Pollution

I. THE ROLE OF CO-POLLUTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN CLIMATE POLICY A. The Value of a Comprehensive Approach B. The Benefits of Integrating Co-pollutant Considerations into Climate Policy 1. The Environmental Benefits of Integrating Co-pollutant Considerations a. Existing Air Pollution b. Do Climate Policies Reduce Co-pollutants? c. How Significant are Climate Policies' Co-pollutant Benefits in Light of Existing and Emerging Direct Co-pollutant Controls? 2. The Administrative and Technical Benefits of Taking a Multi-pollutant Approach C. Addressing the Potential Economic and Political Implications of Incorporating Co-pollutant Considerations D. How Co-pollutant Implications Could Influence Climate Policies II. REGULATION OF STATIONARY SOURCES UNDER THE CAA A. The Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program B. Section 111 Standards III. THE CO-POLLUTANT IMPLICATIONS OF REGULATORY VERSUS MARKET STRATEGIES A. Cap-and-Trade B. Integrating Co-pollutant and GHG Control Strategies C. Co-pollutant Distribution D. Impact on Stringency and Associated Co-pollutant Benefits E. Certainty of Reductions F. Offsets and In-sector Reductions G. Incentives for Technology Transformation H. Participatory Benefits I. Conclusion IV. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCES: EXTENDING THE CAA's REACH A. Extending the CAA to Previously Unregulated Facilities B. The Nature of Section 111(d) Standards: Modest or Transformative? V. CONCLUSION This article, prepared for UCLA Law's spring 2011 symposium entitled Perspectives on Climate Change, Pollution, and the Clean Air Act, begins by addressing an interesting but narrow question: what are the implications of applying the Clean Air Act (CAA) to stationary source greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? That inquiry has led inexorably to deeper issues, including the appropriate role of consequences in developing climate policies, the benefits and drawbacks of traditional versus market-based regulation, and, more specifically, the value of using the CAA to reduce GHG emissions. The CAA's GHG provisions for industrial sources are controversial. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson, environmental organizations, and industry would prefer new climate legislation to implementing the CAA. (1) Further, numerous congressional bills and appropriations riders have sought--persistently but unsuccessfully--to strip EPA of its authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA. (2) An analysis of the CAA's implications can help inform the larger debate about the CAA as a climate policy tool. Given the strong correlation between GHGs and traditional pollutants, there is little question that regulating GHGs from stationary sources will have important consequences. Fossil fuel combustion to produce energy contributed eighty-seven percent of GHG emissions in the United States in 2009, (3) and stationary sources contributed over half of those emissions. (4) Climate policies addressing stationary sources will therefore significantly impact fossil fuel combustion. In most instances, as GHG emissions decrease, associated co-pollutants, like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and other hazardous components, are also likely to decrease. (5) Given the persistence of ongoing air pollution and its pervasive public health and environmental consequences, this co-pollutant benefit'.' is significant. Yet, for the most part, benefits have played little role in climate policy debates. A recent study on the role of benefits in climate policy analyses observed that decision-makers do not usually consider the full range of effects of actions to address climate change. …