[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
ATTENTION: Ed Weiler
- Subject: ATTENTION: Ed Weiler
- From: "Richard Illig (717) 327-3568" <ILLIG.RICHARD@a1.pader.gov>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 06:38:05 -0500 (EST)
- Posting-Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 08:23:00 -0500 (EST)
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sensitivity: Company-Confidential
- Ua-Content-Id: D147ZWWCC03A1
From: R. Illig
Sorry to send to the list, but a direct e-mail address for Ed
Weiler was not available at this writing.
Although I'm willing to offer any insights and/or assistance which
my position allows, and I greatly appreciate your comments
regarding my message about "confidentiality", I'm not sure just
how helpful I can actually be. I'm just a low-level backwoods
I am slightly aware of current efforts with the SBDC's. To answer
your question about "what kind of shield exists", if I understand
you correctly (P2 vs regulatory approaches?), my answer would be,
"respect for the integrity of a sound relationship"...which is
next to no shield at all.
In other words, businesses will be shielded as long as it is
advantageous to government to do so. Public demand for tighter
laws which has (inadvertently?) led to a serious problem of
REGULATORY MICRO-MANAGEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT; outcrys from
environmental groups that government has "rolled over" for
business; legal pressures that existing laws are not being
uniformly enforced; government pressures that business MAY achieve
some undetermined level of protection through self-regulation and
disclosure; and the potential for enforcement coming from a
variety of levels, not just the state gov environmental dept., all
add up to -AND IN MY OPINION- a very unstable foundation for
either business or government to rely on. On a day-to-day basis,
the size of the problem, who knows about it, and was the coffee
good and hot that morning may all make a difference.
Anything short of an all-out "amnesty"-type decree for business,
especially when a demonstrated high level of proactive compliance
(which I'd say is in most cases) can be shown, will be very
inadequate when addressing this problem. The "failsafe" in an
amnesty scenario, similar to the regular justice system (not
currently very popular), would have to be "innocent until proven
guilty". Otherwise, liability issues are simply too overpowering.
(There will always be "environmental losses". Why alienate
business in the first place only then to put out the hand of
The businesses that do buy in currently, generally the larger
ones, seem to benefit more by...better payback (or less losses
depending on your viewpoint) through smaller enforcement fines;
better profit through favorable public perception; a dedicated
environmental staff; much higher liability concerns; and perhaps
an already good running record.
A determined inspector can almost always find a violation. The
argument, "that an inspection is more of an evaluation of the
powers of observation and regulatory knowlegde of the inspector,
rather than an evaluation of a facility's level of compliance"
seems to hold water rather well. Minimizing losses is always an
asset for business, especially when fighting the environmental
aspects of a no-win scenario.