EPA Neglects Hazardous Waste Recovery Rulemaking Petitions for 30 Years
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fully addressed less than five percent of the administrative rulemaking petitions submitted during the past 30 years to one of its branches, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Unlike other agencies, EPA does not display the status of the hundreds of petitions it receives each year from citizens, states, industry and environmental organizations.
The U.S. Administrative Procedures Act requires federal regulatory agencies to “give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment or repeal of a rule.” (5 U.S.C. § 553(e)) Agencies must respond to these petitions “within a reasonable time …” (5 U.S.C. § 555)
An internal analysis of rulemaking petitions submitted to EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation & Recovery, which handles solid and hazardous waste issues, concluded that the agency had fully addressed only two of 50 rulemaking petitions submitted since 1981. For most (34 of 50) of these petitions, EPA had “no record of any action formally taken”—a condition aggravated by the fact that EPA could not even locate them since “copies of the petitions are not available.”
The unanswered petitions cover an array of topics ranging from coal combustion wastes to dry-cleaning cartridge filters. The vast majority were submitted by industry groups with others submitted by state agencies and environmental groups. This backlog was first tallied in 2009 and updated in 2010.
“These documents suggest that the public—including those most affected by the rules—plays no meaningful role in EPA rulemaking,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, who obtained the analyses in discovery produced by EPA in an unrelated case. “A delay of decades exceeds ‘a reasonable time’ to respond by any measure.”
These figures represent only the rulemaking petitions filed before just one of several EPA offices. However, unlike other federal regulatory agencies, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Securities & Exchanges Commission and the Pipelines & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, EPA does not maintain a publicly available docket summarizing the status of rulemaking petitions filed with it. When U.S. Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), Chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, suggested in a November 2012 letter that EPA publicly post its petition docket, the agency responded noncommittally in an April 15 letter that it was still “considering requests to make petitions for rulemaking available in a publicly accessible location.”
“These documents afford us a small peek into a large but undefined regulatory void,” added Dinerstein. “What we have seen suggests that EPA sets an unenviable standard for official unresponsiveness.”
PEER has been waiting nearly two years for EPA to respond to a rulemaking petition seeking correction of its dust corrosivity standards. New standards are needed to prevent first responders from suffering chemical burns to their respiratory systems like those suffered by New York City police and firefighters when they waded into corrosive dust following the 9/11 World Trade Center conflagration.
Visit EcoWatch’s ENERGY pages for more related news on this topic.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›