Originally published on Expert Forum, a blog of the American Constitution Society. Reprinted with permission.
It has often been observed that natural disasters bring out the best and worst in people. Sadly, with regard to environmental protection, the coronavirus pandemic has brought out the worst in the Trump administration. Using the pandemic as a pretext, Trump's EPA has continued to propose and implement substantial rollbacks in important safeguards to our health and the environment while issuing an unduly lax enforcement policy.
For example, the administration recently issued a final rule rolling back automobile fuel efficiency standards. Its new regulation effectively undoes the federal government's program to limit greenhouse gas emissions. In a severe blow to global efforts to address the climate crisis, the regulation allows motor vehicles driven in the United States to emit almost 1 billion tons more carbon dioxide than would have been permitted under the previously effective requirements.
Moreover, EPA is now in the process of rushing through a so-called "transparency rule" that would greatly limit the scientific studies that the agency may use when proposing or revising its regulations. This dramatic regulatory change will be used to curb important, much needed scientific and medical research, and will have harmful, long-range effects on our health and the environment.
In its haste to implement these so-called "regulatory reforms," the agency has denied requests to extend open public comment periods. During an obviously fraught period, when many public health officials and scientific experts are understandably focused on combating COVID-19, EPA's rigid refusal to grant additional commenting time is as arbitrary as it is unfair.
Beyond jamming through anti-environmental regulatory and research rollbacks, EPA has dangerously relaxed its enforcement policies. In a memorandum issued March 26, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance announced a "temporary" policy governing EPA enforcement during the pandemic. This newly minted policy has no stated end date. It declares the agency will now not seek civil penalties when pollution sources violate "routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training and reporting or certification obligations" as a result of COVID-19. Facilities that suspend these activities need not immediately notify the agency that they are doing so. Instead, they must explain the basis for their actions and decisions if — and only if — EPA later seeks to learn what they have done and why. How the agency is to find out about these non-notifications and seek an explanation for them remains a mystery.
This unprecedented policy has all the hallmarks of a political concession to powerful special interests. Rather than being a mere annoyance for operating facilities, self-monitoring, training, accurate laboratory analysis, and self-reporting and certification are critical aspects of pollution control in the United States. In the real world, EPA's non-enforcement policy is an invitation to cheat — boosting profits by violating environmental safeguards.
From the standpoint of public health and the environment, sudden accidental releases of toxic air pollutants are currently of particular concern. These releases — which may occur unmonitored under EPA's new policy — may even take place without the knowledge of industrial facility operators themselves. Moreover, in many cases, the agency will have no way of knowing that the releases have happened, nor will they be able to respond to them in a timely way by insisting on prompt mitigation measures.
Many toxic air pollutants increase the risk of fires and explosions. They have also been proven to seriously exacerbate lung diseases (including asthma and COPD) and cardiovascular illnesses. In a time of widespread lung disease, relaxing requirements that identify and discourage toxic pollution releases is unconscionable.
Effective pollution controls are a critical legal and moral responsibility of industrial enterprises, as well as government institutions. Arguably, that principle is all the more true in the midst of a serious national health crisis. By any reasonable measure, self-monitoring must be seen as an "essential" obligation for owners and operators of facilities that do (or may) pollute the environment, and company personnel who monitor and report on company pollutant releases are "essential personnel." Their vital work must continue.
In exceptional instances, where the COVID-19 crisis genuinely creates circumstances that prevent an industrial facility from complying with environmental requirements, EPA may well wish to exercise enforcement forbearance in an appropriate manner, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the particular facility. But the blanket enforcement waivers contained in the agency's new enforcement policy are unnecessary and irresponsible.
To do its enforcement work properly, EPA must modify its COVID-19 enforcement policy promptly and use its discretion with far more wisdom and good sense.
Many toxic air pollutants increase the risk of fires and explosions. They have also been proven to seriously exacerbate lung diseases (including asthma and COPD) and cardiovascular illnesses. In a time of widespread lung disease, relaxing requirements that identify and discourage toxic pollution releases is unconscionable.
Effective pollution controls are a critical legal and moral responsibility of industrial enterprises, as well as government institutions. Arguably, that principle is all the more true in the midst of a serious national health crisis. By any reasonable measure, self-monitoring must be seen as an "essential" obligation for owners and operators of facilities that do (or may) pollute the environment, and company personnel who monitor and report on company pollutant releases are "essential personnel." Their vital work must continue.
In exceptional instances, where the COVID-19 crisis genuinely creates circumstances that prevent an industrial facility from complying with environmental requirements, EPA may well wish to exercise enforcement forbearance in an appropriate manner, carefully tailored to the unique circumstances of the particular facility. But the blanket enforcement waivers contained in the agency's new enforcement policy are unnecessary and irresponsible.
To do its enforcement work properly, EPA must modify its COVID-19 enforcement policy promptly and use its discretion with far more wisdom and good sense.
Showing 2,821 results
Joel A. Mintz | April 8, 2020
It has often been observed that natural disasters bring out the best and worst in people. Sadly, with regard to environmental protection, the coronavirus pandemic has brought out the worst in the Trump administration. Using the pandemic as a pretext, Trump's EPA has continued to propose and implement substantial rollbacks in important safeguards to our health and the environment while issuing an unduly lax enforcement policy. In a memorandum issued March 26, EPA's Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance announced a "temporary" policy governing EPA enforcement during the pandemic. It declares the agency will now not seek civil penalties when pollution sources violate "routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training and reporting or certification obligations" as a result of COVID-19.
David Flores | April 7, 2020
With all the talk of the "new normal" brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, we cannot lose sight of how government policies and heavy industry continue to force certain populations and communities into a persistent existential nightmare. Polluted air, poisoned water, the threat of chemical explosions – these are all unjust realities that many marginalized and vulnerable Americans face all the time that are even more concerning in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing could make these injustices more outrageously apparent and dangerous than EPA’s signaled retreat on environmental standards and enforcement, which cravenly takes advantage of the global pandemic and a rapidly expanding economic collapse.
Katie Tracy | April 3, 2020
Amazon's response to the coronavirus pandemic is the latest in a long line of instances where the company has put profit ahead of the health, safety, and economic well-being of its workforce. According to Amazon employees at its fulfillment centers and Whole Foods stores, the company is refusing to provide even basic health and safety protections for workers in jobs where they could be exposed to coronavirus.
Joseph Tomain | April 3, 2020
The coronavirus has already taught us about the role of citizens and their government. First, we have learned that we have vibrant and reliable state and local governments, many of which actively responded to the pandemic even as the White House misinformed the public and largely sat on its hands for months. Second, science and expertise should not be politicized. Instead, they are necessary factors upon which we rely for information and, when necessary, for guidance about which actions to take and about how we should live our lives in threatening circumstances.
Joseph Tomain | April 2, 2020
In this time of pandemic, we are learning about our government in real time – its strengths and weaknesses; the variety of its responses; and about our relationship, as citizens, to those we have elected to serve us. Most importantly and most immediately, we have learned the necessity of having a competent, expert regulatory structure largely immune from partisan politics even in these times of concern, anxiety, and confusion.
Daniel Farber | April 2, 2020
The states have been out in front in dealing with the coronavirus. Apart from President Trump's tardy response to the crisis, there are reasons for this, involving limits on Trump's authority, practicalities, and constitutional rulings.
Michael C. Duff | April 1, 2020
Front-line health care workers and other first responders are in the trenches of the battle against the COVID-19 virus. The news is replete with tragic stories of these workers fearing death, making wills, and frantically utilizing extreme social distancing techniques to keep their own families sheltered from exposure to the virus. Should they contract the virus and become unable to work, they may seek workers' compensation coverage, which is the primary benefit system for workers suffering work-related injuries or diseases.
David Flores | April 1, 2020
Hundreds of thousands of Americans, from the southern California surf town of Imperial Beach to the rowhouse-lined blocks of Baltimore, are banding together to bring lawsuits against several dozen of the most powerful and wealthy corporations in the world. In March, 2020, CPR hosted the third installment of its climate justice webinar series. The webinar focused on the growing climate tort litigation movement, explored why litigants are bringing these suits, and discussed where we may see additional litigation in the next several years.
Brian Gumm | March 31, 2020
On March 27, the Center for Progressive Reform joined environmental justice, public health, and community advocates in calling out the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for suspending enforcement of our nation's crucial environmental laws. The agency made the move as part of the Trump administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic, despite mounting evidence that increased air pollution worsens COVID-19, the disease the virus causes.