Rebuilding the EPA

This report suggested five actions the Biden administration could take early on to protect the environment: 1) rejoin the Paris Climate agreement; 2) repeal the “Dirty Water Rule” (the Trump EPA’s CWA rule from 2020); 3) strengthen EPA fuel economy standards and affirm California’s authority to set emissions standards; 4) withdraw Trump draft 5-year plan on offshore drilling; and 5) restore DOE energy efficiency policy for appliances weakened by the Trump administration.

This article argues for the need to remake, not just restore, the EPA in order to tackle growing problems with climate exchange, environmental justice, and toxic pollutants, among other things. It offers ten fixes: 1) take quick action on climate by rejoining the Paris Climate agreement and reversing regulatory rollbacks; 2) restore EPA staff and budget; 3) keep industry out of EPA decision-making; 4) make environmental justice a priority; 5) strengthen safeguards for toxic like lead and vulnerable populations like pregnant women and children; 6) reinvigorate science by funding research, attracting scientists, and incorporating more into decision-making; 7) enforce the law vigorously; 8) better collect, integrate and make accessible data on enforcement and monitoring; 9) steward educational information better; 10) partner with the public on citizen science and public communication and education programs.

This report analyzed the Trump administration’s management of federal websites related to environmental regulation and made recommendations for the Biden administration moving forward. The suggestions included: 1) Creating meaningful resources to expand civic and scientific literacy. This would include building ladders of information on websites, incorporating the scientific basis for regulations on websites, and providing mechanisms for public feedback about web resources. 2) Ensuring that resources are available, discoverable and navigable. And that the public is made aware of opportunities for civic engagement. 3) Preserving public web resources. This would include an accessible archive of web resources, requirements for notice and explanation of content removal, and a database describing changes to websites.

The EDF called not only repairing, but rebuilding the federal government’s approach to the environment. The organization outlined three priorities: 1) Policies that will allow a fast shift toward renewable energy, including making electrical vehicles and their infrastructure more available. 2) Taking responsibility for climate change, including rejoining the Paris climate agreement and rebuilding scientific staff at the EPA. 3) Protecting communities from environmental health threats, including having the EPA “fulfill its commitment” to President Clinton’s executive order on environmental justice (EO 12898). “It’s not enough to make up for four lost years, we have to rebuild an America that’s healthier and more equitable than it has ever been,” the EDF concluded.

This extensive report, with several substantial supporting documents, from former EPA staff outlined six priorities for renewing the EPA: 1) a reaffirmation from the agency of its commitment to public health and the environment; 2) scientific and economic analysis free from political interference; 3) the incorporation of environmental justice into all aspects of the agency’s work; 4) a focus on the most significant and pervasive public health and environmental risks; 5) innovation and collaboration with other federal agencies, stakeholders and local, state and tribal governments; 6) re-establishment of public trust in the agency through demonstrated action and transparency.

Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign laid out a plan for environmental justice that would utilize an “All-of-Government” approach; use data and science to drive decisions; prioritize environmental justice in use of resources; and assess risks to communities from future public health emergencies. Among other things, the plan called for the creation of an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice to pursue EJ-related cases in concert with the EPA’s Office of Civil Rights. The plan also included an overhaul of the EPA’s External Civil Rights Compliance Office to increase its effectiveness in mitigating impacts for frontline and fenceline communities. Along the same lines, the plan sought public input how the agency should handle Title VI (anti-discrimination) complaints. And it sought to reinstitute a private right of action to sue under Title VI. Regarding the use of data and science, the plan stated that the administration will resuscitate and expand the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool, which would assist government agencies and communities in identifying threats to communities. Expansion of data collection and dissemination would include mandated monitoring of frontline and fenceline communities and requirements that industries directly notify communities, in real time, about releases of hazardous and toxic chemicals. The plan included several other policies and programs, some especially relevant to the EPA such as regulations relating to air pollution in disadvantaged communities and water pollution from PFAS.

This plan emphasized the transition to a 100% clean energy economy; infrastructure investments to boost the economy and climate resilience; a recommitment to the Paris Agreement; action against fossil fuel polluters, especially in context of environmental justice; and not leaving workers and communities behind in the transition. The EPA’s role in this plan was noted in regard to action against fossil fuel polluters. The Biden plan stated that he would direct the DOJ to pursue criminal cases against violators, including holding corporate executive personally accountable.

Moms Clean Air Force argued that the “Biden administration must leap into the future with a bold, ambitious plan to cut climate and air pollution.” MCAF was encouraged by the early actions of the Biden administration including rejoining the Paris Climate Accord and issuing executive orders related to the restoration of the role of the federal government in environmental protection. Going forward, MCAF wanted “bold and ambitious action” from the EPA. The top priorities include: 1) restoration of science as the foundation guiding the CAA; 2) fix Trump rollbacks that threaten air quality; 3) cut pollution from cars, trucks and buses; 4) cut pollution from power generators; 5) cut methane emissions from oil and gas development; 6) properly implement the Toxic Substances Control Act; 7) reconsider regulation of the Chlorpyrifos pesticide; 8) tighten and enforce regulations of refiners and cracker plants.

The PRHE collaborated with scientists and chemical policy experts to develop recommendations to improve hazard and risk assessment, and prevent harms from chemicals and pollutants. Its key recommendations were: 1) Assessing hazards and risks of chemicals using more representative definitions of susceptible populations and quantification of risks for all health effects, both cancer and noncancer, at all anticipated levels of exposure. 2) Adoption of a “science-based, validated systemic review” method for evaluation of chemical harms. 3) Ensure outcomes of environmental laws and policies result in equal protection, not environmental disparities. 4) Laws to make science free from financial conflicts of interest from industry. 5) Invest in up-to-date research and data infrastructure to better identify and prioritize harms, risks and interventions.

Safer Chemicals, Health Families group was encouraged by President Biden’s initial executive orders directing EPA to review actions by the Trump administration related to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). They were also encouraged to see three items on Biden’s “Build Back Better” list that accorded with their priorities: 1) Develop a ban, or stronger protections, for methylene chloride; 2) revisit regulations related to persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals to comply with TSCA; 3) reconsider chemical risks to include all conditions of use when evaluating chemicals.

The Union of Concerned Scientists argued that the next president after Trump needed to show leadership in restoring and strengthening the use of science in government. The UCS outlined four general areas of focus: 1) promoting science-based decision making; 2) strengthening scientific integrity; 3) enforcing transparency in decision making; 4) addressing conflicts of interest; 5) safeguarding government scientists; 6) fostering public participation in decision making; and 7) protecting democratic processes. Within these areas, the UCS identified dozens of specific policy recommendations, many of which targeted the EPA. These included ways to better include frontline communities in decision making; maintaining transparency in science at the EPA without obstructing or sidelining the use of good scientific data; and reducing the influence of industrial interests who undermine scientific decision making.

The World Resources Institute argued that it would not be enough to simply reverse the rollbacks of the Trump administration. The lost time for action during the Trump administration and looming threats meant that the administration needs to “roll forward.” The key ways to do this, the WRI, stated were: 1) return science to the center of decision-making and elevate frontline voices; 2) establish the U.S. as a global climate leader; 3) reinstate emission standards and advance zero-emissions vehicle performance standards; 4) rescind the replacement rule for the Clean Power Plan and develop new standards; 5) reinstate and strengthen methane rules for oil and gas; 6) repeal new methane rule for low-carbon steel and cementer and set new standards; 7) set stronger efficiency standards and encourage building electrification. The recommendations noted the role of the EPA in rescinding and developing regulations and the need to better include frontline community members in decision-making processes at the EPA.

This blog post by Earthjustice highlights the organization’s courtroom battles—and victories—over the last four years. The page offers links to several court cases: 1) the prevention of a corporate ploy to weaken the Clean Water Act in Hawai’i; 2) the protection of the Arctic against industrial exploitation, especially dirty energy such as oil and gas drilling; 3) the revocation of the Dakota Access Pipeline’s permits at Standing Rock and requirement of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to review the pipeline project’s environmental impact; 4) providing assistance to grassroots organizations to end and resist dirty energy companies from establishing oil or coal terminals in Washington state; 5) the protection of grizzly bears populations in Yellowstone from trophy hunting; 6) the prevention of the Pebble Mine project from being granted a permit in Bristol Bay, protecting its waters and wild salmon; 7) advancing the transition from fossil fuels to 100% clean energy; and 8) protecting endangered species and regional biodiversity by reducing fossil fuel development, deforestation, and industrial development.

In his article, Joel Mintz identifies that the work to restore the EPA must include the reinstitution of effective practices which were curtailed by the Trump administration, while simultaneously expanding the agency’s workforce and talent. Specifically, the EPA should 1) significantly increase its full-time equivalent workforce; 2) return to a model of scientifically-based policy to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis; 3) assign a team of agency scientists to identify the most harmful Trump administration policies for priority action and reversal; 4) restore the prior EPA model of deterrent enforcement; 5) recruit new personnel, especially criminal investigators, lawyers, and engineers; and 6) augment punitive deterrence by publicizing enforcement work.

This Nature editorial reviews the long attack, exacerbated by the Trump administration, on the EPA under the guise of economic growth. The authors argue for a return to science, competent leadership, and the construction of an administrative structure that can and will exist in perpetuity. To do so, President Biden must 1) strengthen the agency’s existing structure to prevent any future administrations from strangling science-based evidence and policy; 2) rebuild the EPA’s in-house science team, filling and strengthening positions such as the assistant administrator for the EPA’s research division (the Office of Research and Development), a separate chief scientist for the agency, and the scientific-integrity official; 3) structure staffing to promote honesty and transparency over obedience; 4) appoint competent staff in the White House Office of Science and Technology to oversee scientific integrity across federal agencies; 4) insulate the agency by codifying scientific integrity in congressional policy through legislation; and 5) appoint a competent, visionary, and dedicated EPA administrator to lead the EPA according to a long-term mission of environmental protection.

Hersher’s article begins by reviewing how, historically, the U.S. government has been either involved in, or a perpetrator, or environmental racism, with race the strongest predictor of proximity to toxic sites and inequitable environmental regulation. To address both historic and Trump era damages, Hersher quotes academics, advocates, and government officials to provide a series of suggestions on how to strengthen human and environmental protection. 1) The EPA must listen to, and build relationships of trust with vulnerable communities, especially those disproportionately suffering from the effects of pollution; 2) Clinton’s 1994 executive order addressing environmental racism must be expanded and updated; 3) funds must be provided to assist communities afflicted by both the COVID19 pandemic and chronic pollution; 4) legislation must be enacted to allow low-income communities and communities of color to sue the government regarding disproportionate pollution.

In this article, Meiburg begins by reviewing the Trump administration’s unprecedented commitment to undermine the EPA. Not only did senior Trump officials, consumed by climate denial, use their understanding of the EPA’s regulatory structure to enact far-reaching changes to the agency, the challenges of climate change, environmental injustice, and chemical harm to the environment create a bureaucratic and environmental challenge for President Biden. Likewise, the Trump EPA worked to curtail state’s powers to legislate and enforce environmental policies through cutting operating grants, limiting the Clean Water Act, and opposing state climate initiatives. Rebuilding the EPA will require forward-looking businesses who recognize the threats of climate change, market systems that generate efficient environmental protection, and that the EPA re-embrace Ruckelshaus’s core values of science, law, and transparency to regenerate confidence in the agency both inside and out.

Cohen begins the article by reviewing that environmental policy emerged in the 1970s, around when the United States began to shift to a service economy. Although contemporary Americans are open to arguments that green policies kill jobs, most still desire healthy and safe communities. To restore the EPA after it was dismantled in the Trump era, President Biden must 1) restore competent nonpartisan management of the EPA, NOAA, and Department of the Interior; 2) draw mission-driven professionals to federal service; 3) replace weakened environmental regulations with more effective and tougher policies than those lost in the Trump era; 4) decarbonize the American energy system through an infrastructure program that offers tax incentives to industries; 5) re-start American leadership in climate diplomacy; 6) accommodate businesses who are making efforts in good faith to comply with environmental policy; 7) develop a hardline position against environmental poisons. Creativity is key in environmental policy, undertaken by both the government and corporations working in concert.

Cheryl Wasserman, a former EPA employee and current president of the Environmental Governance Institute International, calls on the Biden administration to repeal Trump-era restrictions on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); invest in America’s infrastructure with green energy technology; and reinstate higher taxes on the wealthy for future Americans. The United State’s lack of investment in infrastructure has negatively affected the economy and public health, according to Wasserman. Lead-contaminated water systems are detrimental to brain development, for example, and dated wastewater treatment systems inflict gastrointestinal problems and pollute aquatic ecosystems. It is critical that NEPA’s original purpose—the requirement that federal agencies seek better alternatives to their missions, cooperate with each other along with tribal, local, and state governments, and conserve and optimize our limited natural resources—be reinstated to guide large investments in infrastructure.

Wagner and Walker propose that the federal government institute proactive regulation of potentially toxic chemicals and shift the responsibility of national chemical safety to chemical manufacturers and from the underfunded EPA and victims who file tort claims for damages. According to the authors, at this time, unanalyzed and ‘forever’ chemicals are freely pumped into the environment, with manufacturers having no responsibility to evaluate the effects of their products. Currently, manufacturers have the power to inhibit current EPA regulation by classifying their chemicals as “trade secrets'' to conceal chemical name and design, sue the EPA when criticized, manipulate internal studies in the absence of conflict-of-interest standards, hire compliant scientists to critique independent studies, and substitute known toxins with unknown—potentially more toxic—chemicals without testing. To amend this, the authors assert that manufacturers must be required to test their chemicals according to an established, mandatory set of guidelines before a product hits the market. Likewise, independent third-party analysts must be employed to assure that these tests are credible.

Biden’s Justice40 Plan promises to direct forty percent of federal environmental investments to people in need, potentially directing millions of dollars to disadvantaged communities if executed properly. The Plan itself comes from the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Committee, which recommended investment in national energy efficiency, sustainable and affordable housing, training the national workforce to transition to green energy, and pollution reduction. However, the project can still fail if individual states mismanage the funds directed to them, or if slush-fund projects are prioritized over an active investment in communities in need. Though Green, a journalist, does no offer specific advice, she does note the potential pitfalls of the plan the Biden administration should be wary of: 1) Republican-led states may thwart federal plans for political reasons; 2) the current plan for Justice40 potentially pits communities in need against each other in the screening process for aid; 3) frontline advocates were not consulted in the planning process of Justice40; 4) the ‘forty percent’ part of the plan should serve as a baseline, not a limit for climate justice; and 5) funding may be limited due to a contentious congressional environment.

Terry Yosie, the former head of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, begins this article with a warning: years of bipartisan neglect, anti-science and anti-regulation decisions have weakened public institutions leaving many lives susceptible to pollution and disease. After a historic reduction of the EPA’s resources in the Trump era, five investments must be made in the EPA to protect both the environment and public health. First, The EPA must be repopulated with talented staff to assess threats, perform cost-benefit analysis on regulatory actions, and achieve compliance with regulated entities. Second, public health must be directly linked to the detrimental and compounding effects of global climate change and domestic pollution at home. Third, cutting edge technology must be proactively implemented to track pollutants throughout America to prevent another health crisis such as the one in Flint, Michigan. Fourth, environmental action must meet the digital age by incorporating big data or analytical software. Finally, social justice must be integral to environmental protection, as communities of color and lower income neighborhoods still receive disproportionately lower governmental aid yet experience disproportionately greater exposure to industrial pollutants.

“A Perfect Storm: When Tropical Storms Meet Toxic Waste,” released by the U.S. PIRG Education Fund and the Environment America Research & Policy Center, reports that, so far, only “dumb luck” has prevented Superfund toxic waste sites in the path of hurricanes from causing an environmental and public health catastrophe. Rumpler, echoing the report, calls for the EPA to reinstate the “Polluter Pays” tax to expand, improve, and expedite cleanup of these toxic sites. The report itself also recommends that: the effects of climate change should be considered when prioritizing cleanup; state and local governments should work more closely with the EPA; and individuals should find out if they live near a Superfund site to protect themselves.

In this article, journalist Rebecca Leber argues that Biden must utilize his executive powers to bypass congressional obstruction in order to achieve his ambitious climate change goals. According to members of the environmental community and former Obama administration, Biden must 1) reinstate over 101 environmental safeguards undermined in the Trump era; 2) deter oil companies from drilling on public land by increasing fees or royalties; 3) establish an environmental advisory position which focuses on environmental and racial justice by partnering with state governments; 4) curtail the financial industry’s investment in fossil fuels; 5) push for expansive investment in federal clean energy infrastructure; 6) raise energy efficiency standards of appliances (such as water heaters); 7) fulfill the ambitious 100 percent clean energy target by 2035, which includes U.S. vehicles; and 8) walk a fine line between action and diplomacy to enlist the aid of both Congress and the courts.

Employees of the EPA have been demoralized, and the American people no longer have faith in the EPA’s leadership. Etzel, a former EPA leader, argues that the solution to this crisis of faith is to refocus the EPA towards the protection of public health. To do so, the EPA should explicitly affirm its commitment to public health in both word and action. Second, the EPA should rescind the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science'' regulation to reintegrate private epidemiological studies into environmental protection. Third, the EPA should establish a hiring program to require at least 5% of the EPA’s workforce to be trained in epidemiology (currently, this number sits at below 1%) and establish a Center of Epidemiology to ensure public health experts are involved in agency decision making.

The Trump era initiated an exodus of EPA employees and 78 reported deregulatory actions, leaving behind a daunting task for the new EPA administrator, Michael Regan. Peters writes that there are a number of actions that Regan and the EPA should, and likely will, take. First, the EPA will likely create a new map of pollution hotspots that focuses on communities hit hard by pollution, climate change, poverty, and systemic racism. Second, the EPA should overturn Trump-era policies, such as “secret science” regulation which limits which studies the EPA can utilize in creating environmental regulation. Third, the EPA should wield the power it was given in the Clean Air Act to limit air pollution and create new standards for car emissions. Fourth, credibility must be restored to the EPA by rehiring scientists and staff and adding actual experts, not industry consultants, to science advisory boards.

Shrago argues that, in the decades leading up to Trump, EPA’s budget and workforce has faced stagnation and austerity even as its responsibilities and ambitions have grown. The Trump-era hiring freeze only aged and decreased the EPA’s workforce. To reverse the situation, the Biden administration must reject austerity with environmental policies and increase the EPA’s staff to 25,000 permanent employees. To hire and maintain this number, $2.2 billion must be added to the EPA’s budget.

The EPA is back to work under the Biden administration, these authors say, and four key steps have aided the agency in its mission: 1) competent leadership in the form of Michael Regan; 2) restoration of the EPA’s climate change website and the integrity of independent science advisory committees; 3) a clear direction has formed towards environmental justice for historically marginalized communities; and 4) Trump-era rollbacks are being scaled back. However, as the EPA’s budget lingers at less than 1% of the total federal discretionary budget, more funding must be directed to the agency to fulfill its mission. Congress must invest in the EPA, its core operating programs, public health, jobs, pollution clean-up, and the protection of vulnerable communities.