Search results

Three approaches to regulatory reform are discussed on the assumption that environmental & health standards are, & will remain, basic instruments of regulatory policy. First, statutory regulations should be replaced as much as possible by nonstatutory codes & standards. Standards should be revised as scientific knowledge improves, empirical evidence accumulates, & public perceptions change. However, frequent revisions are unlikely & costly when standards are embedded in legal codes. Second, a distinction should be drawn between environmental & health goals, on the one hand, & currently feasible levels of protection, on the other. When regulators are required to balance economic, technical, & health or environmental considerations, the result is generally ambiguous, representing neither a policy goal, nor a scientific judgment, nor even a measure of the level of protection that can reasonably be achieved in specific local situations. Third, great attention should be paid to the procedural aspects of standard-setting. Given the cognitive complexity facing regulators, the substantive rationality of regulatory decisions cannot be judged independently of their procedural rationality. Taken together, these proposals imply a regulatory model that relies less on law & more on self-regulation, voluntary compliance, & professional discretion in technical interpretations. AA.

Current assessment tools and intervention strategies are based mainly on experience of camp-like situations; what is needed are innovative responses to address problems specific to open settings. Adapted from the source document.