ES&T
GUEST EDITORIAL Industry participation in the regulatory process I have participated for more than a decade in background industry studies sponsored by EPA and its predecessor agencies. This experience has given me familiarity with the often-expressed industrial criti cism that regulations are frequently based on insuf ficient "real world" data and are therefore unworkable and/or too costly to implement. In my experience, this criticism is well-founded. The contracting community has also been criticized for a lack of understanding of manufacturing pro cesses and waste treatment characteristics, which are often regarded by the industry as confidential or nondisclosable. These criticisms suggest the absence of a communicative mechanism between industry and the regulatory agency, which has denied full and vol untary industrial cooperation. To make matters worse, the EPA has at times generated background reports based on insufficient or obsolete data for the apparent purpose of coercing industry into providing technical data it possesses. Poor and therefore costly regulations can be avoided if such adversary positions are abandoned in favor of more cooperative approaches requiring the inter change of "real world" data between industry and EPA in the problem definition effort. I submit that in the present atmosphere of budgetary constraints, de sire for regulatory reform and emphasis on the use of good science and sound engineering are conducive to the initiation of a new era. At present, it seems to industry that EPA functions as the definer and investigator of problems as well as the regulator of the resulting definition. This is a "judge-and-jury" function that is not conducive to cooperation. Separation of these conflicting functions
228A
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 17, No. 6, 1983
is essential to effective industrial participation in the problem definition phase. In this regard, Ramo's discussion {Science, Aug. 21, 1981, Vol. 213) of the problems involved in the national regulation of tech nological activity is helpful. Industry can legitimately ask for effective participation in the problem definition phase but must logically yield regulatory decision making to legitimate federal authority. One possible mechanism for separating these functions involves the delegation of investigatory re sponsibility to independent "boards" or "project teams" comprised of technical experts from affected industries, academia, and government. Such teams should develop, within time and budget constraints, the best available data bases for use by EPA decision makers. Industry and its trade associations would have a special responsibility to identify and supply the ap propriate industrial experts for participation in these investigatory functions. Such a mechanism would provide access to indus trial expertise in the problem definition phase, give industry a meaningful role in the regulatory process, and alleviate many of the present regulatory defi ciencies.
Masood Ghassemi is α principal with Multidisciplinary Energy and Environ mental Systems and Applications (MEESA ) , San Pedro, Calif. He has been the technical director for a large number of government-sponsored studies in haz ardous waste management, toxic sub stance control, and environmental as sessment of new energy technologies.
0013-936X/83/0916-0228A$01.50/0
© 1983 American Chemical Society
