The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal

Author(s):  
Luann J. Lynch ◽  
Almand R. Coleman ◽  
Cameron Cutro ◽  
Cameron Cutro

In September 2015, VW had admitted to United States regulators that it had deliberately installed “defeat devices” in many of its diesel cars, which enabled the cars to cheat on federal and state emissions tests, making them able to pass the tests and hit ambitious mileage and performance targets while actually emitting up to 40 times more hazardous gases into the atmosphere than legally allowed. The discovery had prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to halt final certification of VW’s 2016 diesel models, and VW itself had halted sales of its 2015 models. As fallout from the defeat devices developed, VW posted its first quarterly loss in more than 15 years, and its stock plummeted. Top executives were replaced, and VW abandoned its goal of becoming the world’s largest automaker. Stakeholders around the world had been asking since the scandal broke: “How could this have happened at Volkswagen?”

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (2) ◽  
pp. 1479-1483 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Nichols

ABSTRACT The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan Final Rule, Subpart J Product Schedule (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300.900), which lists dispersants, surface-washing agents (SWAs), bioremediation agents, surface-collecting agents, and miscellaneous oil spill control agents that may be used in response to oil spills on land and on or near waters of the United States, depending on the product and its proper application. Over the last few years, alternative oil spill response methods have been gaining in acceptance and use in the field among first responders, industry, state and federal agencies, Congress, and the entire oil spill response community. EPA sets policy and guidance for the proper use and authority to use these products. Manufacturers and vendors of these products have become more aware of this acceptance evidenced by the frequency that EPA is contacted to provide information on the listing process and EPA policy regarding their use. The number of applications to add new products to the Subpart J Product Schedule has increased over the last year. Subpart J is very prescriptive and specific in directing manufacturers to perform the proper test within the proper protocols, yet many applications are rejected or need modification because of errors in testing procedures or data reporting. This paper will address the data needed to list a product under each category and will clarify issues related to the Product Schedule. It will also address the policies that EPA uses to enforce the Subpart J regulation. The author has managed the Product Schedule for over 3 years, and his experience and expertise regarding the issues surrounding alternative countermeasures will be covered as well. Dispersants, SWAs, chemical sorbents, and other technologies have sparked controversy and confusion in all regions and areas of the United States, and in some cases internationally. Many research efforts have added to the baseline knowledge we have about dispersants and bioremediation agents' toxicity, efficacy, and proper use, but conflicts still arise as that data is interpreted and applied in the field. The reader will have a better understanding of why and how alternative countermeasures are required to be listed and describe the authority to use them based on EPA policy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone M. Müller

This article focuses on chemical retailers Jack and Charles Colbert to, first, show the externalization processes linked to the greening of U.S. industry through stricter consumer and environmental protection regulations and, second, illustrate the limitations of nationally framed environmentalism targeting businesses in a global market. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Colberts traded chemicals that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had banned for use in the United States. They exported them legally to countries where the material was still a permitted commodity—primarily in the global South. Rare interview material illustrates how the exporters justified their unequal business deals by misappropriating the meaning of recycling.


1999 ◽  
Vol 01 (03) ◽  
pp. 329-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
REBECCA A. EFROYMSON

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is the legislation used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate releases of genetically engineered microorganisms. The rule defining the scope of the notification requirements for releases of microbial products of biotechnology was published in April 1997. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had some latitude regarding the extent to which various categories of microorganisms would be regulated, but the agency was constrained by requirements of TSCA and an interagency agreement about how to regulate products of biotechnology. This paper investigates the extent to which the scope of oversight is based on risk. A risk-based rule is defined as one where the reporting requirements are based on potential for exposure or expected adverse effects. The evolution of the rule is described, and risk-based components are discussed. In conclusion, the scope of oversight of microbial releases is determined to be based on risk to the extent that legislation and institutional constraints permit.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document