-
GUEST EDITORIAL The mvfhs of environment& regulation Conventional wisdom suggests that the system of environmental regulations and permits in the U S . necessarily causes significant delays and increased costs in project development. This belief may reflect a basic misunderstanding of how the structure of environmental permitting and regulation actually works. Compliance with environmental laws and their accompanying regulations is often uncoordinated and confusing to companies unaccustomed to any public participation in their planning processes. When projects have faltered, environmental regulations have sometimes unfairly borne the blame. Recent events in Washington have demonstrated, however, that environmental regulation and permitting are here to stay. The only relevant question for regulators and applicants alike is whether that process will be rational, efficient, expeditious, and fair. The myths of environmental regulation are twofold: I ) that compliance will necessarily create increased costs and lengthy delays in a project’s completion and 2) that it is better not to disclose and candidly assess any negative environmental aspects of the project unless and until forced to do so. A consequence of these fears is a frequent tendency on the part of project proponents to gloss over potentially harmful environmental impacts and to fail to examine reasonable alternatives to the project. No path could be more hazardous to a project’s environmental compliance. As many planners have learned by costly experience, truly controversial projects simply cannot escape close environmental scrutiny by the public and the courts. The only question is when that scrutiny will occur-early in the process when the problems are manageable, or late in the process, when the escalating cost and delay can be fatal. Recent studies by the Conservation Foundation and other organizations have confirmed that project delays are more often the product of uncertainty and poor planning by both companies and agencies than of difficulties in actual technical compliance with environmental laws. Furthermore, a project need not be environmentally “perfect” in order to pass environmental muster. For example, a key to understanding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to recognize that NEPA seeks to achieve substantive environmental goals through a series of procedural steps, such as providing for adequate public partici0013-936X/83/0916-0395A$O1.50/0
pation. Courts readily seize upon procedural flaws in the NEPA process, but seldom question thesubstantive decisions of agencies. Corporate and other planners are often reluctant to invite public or government participation in the early planning stages of a project. This reluctance may stem from a belief that too much disclosure, particularly before the proposal is final, might flag controversial issues for project opponents and give too much attention to the negative environmental aspects of the project. To the contrary, meaningful and public consideration of all viewpoints and potential alternatives and coordination of all procedural requirements are essential in minimizing the costs of delays associated with environmental compliance. This effort should be not just a PR exercise to sell the project, but a genuine consideration of these concerns at an early stage, when legitimate environmental interests can be accommodated most easily and a t least cost. One practical mechanism addressing these concerns is the voluntary Joint Review Process (JRP), an experiment in Colorado and other states to coordinate all of a project’s environmental permitting and to ensure early and meaningful public involvement. A JRP-type procedureshould beattractive tocompanies, regulators, and environmentalists alike because: I ) it reduces uncertainty and inefficient planning in the permitting process; 2) the formal record it creates reduces the likelihood of successful lawsuits and their accompanying delays; and 3) it raises and addresses legitimate environmental issues early, when they are more likely to be accommodated. Careful planning, close attention to procedures, and meaningful public participation cannot solve all problems of environmental permitting, nor can they prevent suits from being brought by determined opponents of new projects. However, they do offer the prospect of relief from costly, unnecessary delays in the permitting process and from prolonged litigation.
@ 1983 American Chemical Society
Don G. Scro&n pracricr.s rncironmenlal aw at rhr Wrrshingron. D.C.. l a w j i r m of vridgp R IXoiiroiid. P.C. Environ. Sci. TeChnOI.. VoI. 17. NO.9. 1983
395A
reference but the journal’s reviewers also were remiss. Although the author appears to exhibit a certain weakness in referencing on the topic of detection limits, the ES& T feature article is still very valuable, Sam Fogel, PhD
1,2,3,7 1,2,3,8 -
- 1,2,3,4 1,2,3,4 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins 1,2,7,8 -
-
1,2,6,7 -
1,4,6,9-
N v) N
J
WL
Our CP“ Si1 88 fused silica capillary column separates the important 1,2,7,8tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from the other isomers as the chromatogram above shows. If you’re working with dioxins, or want to discuss other separation problems call 800-526-3687*. You’ll reach Chrompack, specialists in chromatography.
Allen S. Mason Eugene J. Mroz Paul R. Guthals Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, N.M. 87545
’In N.J. Call 201-722-8930
n
n
CIRCLE 9 ON READER SERVICE CARD
396A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 9, 1983
Cambridge Analytical Associates 222 Arsenal St. Watertown, Mass. 02172 Artic haze Dear Sir: W e wish to bring to the attention of your readership an omission in the article on Arctic haze that appeared in the June issue, p. 232A. No mention was made of the participation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory’s Isotope Geochemistry Group (INC-7), which provided both scientific input and operational direction to the U S . Department of Energy (DOE) High Altitude Sampling Program (HASP) flights of a WB-57F aircraft during the experiment. The DOE H A S P scientific director, Dr. Robert Leifer, was listed in the table of principal scientists, but the significant contributions of the HASP program were not given in the text. On March 13, 1983, the H A S P WB-57F flew from Anchorage to a point northwest of Point Barrow, thence along the 73rd parallel, and finally returned to Anchorage. Aerosol, gas, and water vapor samples were taken. Analyses for sulfate, ammonium, nitric acid, sodium, chlorine, bromine, vanadium, manganese, aluminum, lead-210, and polonium-210 have been completed. Analyses of trace gases, tritiated water vapor, tritium gas, and carbon-14 dioxide are in progress. The WB-57F aircraft is operated by the Johnson Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, for the U.S. DOE.
Correction This is an erratum to the paper “Microbial removal of hazardous organic compounds” by H. Kobayashi and B. Rittmann published in the May 1982 issue of ES& T , p. 170A. In Table 1, 1,2,3- and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene were listed as being converted to dichlorobenzene by soil microorganisms. The products should have been dichlorophenols. Hester Kobayashi Sohio Research Center Cleveland, Ohio 44 128
