Mixed bag. I agree the permit probably shouldn't have that requirement, at least not at this time. that's a whole bag of regulation: how much monitoring? what constitutes a micro plastic? what's the baseline for the ocean in the area? who consumes the monitoring data? how do you monitor? are there consequences when it goes too high? what is too high? are all microplastics made equal or do different types of plastics have different effects?

In an honest administration I would figure they would strike the requirement then go forward to answer questions like those to see if there's a need to form regulation around it. And an honest administration could probably bring forth those types of nuances to an informed and level-headed public and be accepted.

We do not have an honest administration, nor an informed or a level-headed public. His firing was likely both retaliatory for making them look bad when the information was released but also "we know this guy's not going to play ball and cause problems for us later. get rid of him"

As the old saying goes; "you only get what you can measure".

TLDR: EPA policy does not require microplastic monitoring. Mr. Tyler decides to require it and doesn’t ask his boss. Boss says remove the requirement. Mr. Tyler publicly calls out his boss and gets fired.

So what about any of this is news?

Yes, microplastics are a big concern. But Mr. Tyler doesn’t get to make policy all by himself then accuse his employer for being bent when they say Hold Up.

Paywall.