Time: Tue Nov 11 15:04:27 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA15007
for [address in tool bar]; Tue, 11 Nov 1997 14:22:26 -0700 (MST)
Delivered-To: liberty-and-justice-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 16:20:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by DBV
From: Patricia Neill <pnpj@db1.cc.rochester.edu>
Subject: L&J: Forbes on EPA: High costs, higher confusion
To: jad@locust.etext.org
Message-id: <01IPW1IP65K29D4EEE@DBV>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
http://www.forbes.com/Forbes/97/1020/6009174a.htm
High costs, higher confusion
44 cents
According to a report released Sept. 16 by the Government
Accounting Office (GAO), for every dollar EPA spent in
fiscal 1996 on cleaning up hazardous waste (Superfund) sites,
only 44 cents is actually spent on cleanup.
$210 million
Parties trapped in Superfund's vastlitigation net spend $210
million annually just to cover the cost of their attorneys.
$3 billion
According to EPA's own data, U.S. businesses spend $3
billion and 115 million hours each year completing the
paperwork required by the massive reporting system the
agency has developed over the past quarter-century.
$47 billion
In pushing for new standards for particulate matter (PM) and
ozone, EPA originally claimed its proposal would cost
approximately $8.5 billion, a figure the agency revised to $47
billion after President Clinton approved the program.
$37 billion
EPA now also concedes that the costs of its new air quality
standards may exceed any health benefits resulting from the
program. While estimating that the new ozone standard will
cost the regulated community $9.6 billion, the agency
acknowledges that the benefits will range from $1.5 billion to
$8.5 billion. For particulate matter, which EPA says will cost
$37 billion to implement, the benefits range from $19.8 billion
to as high as $110 billion.
EPA regulations
Though it's difficult to put a price tag on it, businesses and
local governments spend a tremendous amount of time just
trying to figure out what EPA wants them to do. "EPA's
regulations are written in Latin with Greek footnotes," says
Frank Shafroth of the National League of Cities.
In attempting to comply with EPA's regulations, conflicting
definitions often reign. Said one federal judge recently about
the hazardous waste regulations of the Resource Conservation
& Recovery Act (RCRA): "The people who wrote this ought
to go to jail. They ought not to be indicted, that's not enough."
For instance, even though some EPA regulations define
hazardous waste as a solid waste, other agency regulations
define solid waste as a subset of hazardous waste.
| back to top | back to story
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Unsub info - send e-mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com, with
"unsubscribe liberty-and-justice" in the body (not the subject)
Liberty-and-Justice list-owner is Mike Goldman <whig@pobox.com>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail