3



1999 CRC Press LLC

The Influence of Command and
Control Regulations

CONTENTS

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

The United States has employed a system of environmental protection through the passage of laws
enforced by state and federal government agencies (see listing). The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is responsible for the federal program and provides guidance and financial assistance
to the states. Although other approaches have been employed, this system is primarily built on the
command and control approach. That is, specific conditions or quantitative restrictions must be
met or action can be taken against the violator such as the assessment of penalties. Another term
for command and control might be specification standard as opposed to a performance-oriented
standard designed to provide flexibility in its implementation. Upon passage of proposed legislation
developed by congressional committees and subcommittees, the implementing regulations must be
developed by the agency (

Figure 2

).

Figure 2 Development of U.S. Environmental Regulations and Policy

Chap3.fm Page 17 Sunday, August 19, 2001 6:17 PM



1999 CRC Press

LLC

Unlike international environmental law in which individuals are not recognized (although recent

decisions by the International Court of Justice indicate this is changing), regulatory action by the
EPA requires public notification accomplished through advanced publication of the action in the
Federal Register. The action will call for public comment and EPA may sponsor workshops or
presentations in various cities around the country regarding proposed regulations as another means
to inform the public and solicit comment and participation.

Federal regulations may require states to take action, including development of state laws

resulting in two and sometimes three layers of command and control type requirements that are
lengthy and complicated. The third layer is a local municipality or authority. Under this framework,
laws have been developed that establish nationally acceptable pollution levels such as National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Maximum Con-
taminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), both designed to protect
human health.

Standards have also been established that specify required technology and pollution control

reductions. Much has been accomplished to reduce and control pollution through these mechanisms.
However, the very nature of the system precludes flexibility both in compliance and enforcement
of the regulation. In our fast-changing world, today’s businesses must be allowed to determine the
best ways to achieve compliance or better yet methods to meet environmental objectives. The
current system is fragmented and duplicative. Not only are the regulations organized independent
from one another, so are the offices and, consequently, the people tasked with implementing these
programs. Federal and state acts provide for substantial civil and criminal penalties creating
litigation issues that promote a focus on compliance even if not accomplishing improvements to
environmental quality. As reported by Davies and Mazurek, pollution levels in the United States
remain high when compared to other industrialized nations. Substantial improvements to air quality
have been realized under the current system for a number of air pollutants; however, some still
remain elusive and may present a risk to human health and the environment.

Would an integrated approach such as that adopted by numerous countries (

Table 1

) provide

a more efficient system both in terms of cost and environmental protection? It may promote
technological advances in pollution control, provide the necessary focus on pollution prevention
and minimization, and provide the necessary program integration to eliminate duplication and
facilitate environmental protection. In spite of the regulatory structure, businesses have begun to
realize that an Environmental Management System improves environmental performance while at
the same time improving efficiency. Although the need for regulatory requirements still exists,
national policies should promote and support integrated environmental management programs
adopted by businesses.

Table 1: Integrated Pollution Control

European Union

Council Directive 96/61/EC, 24 September 1996

The Netherlands

National Environmental Policy Plan, 1989 and Environmental Management Act of

1993

Norway

Norwegian Pollution Control Act

Sweden

Environmental Protection Act

United Kingdom

Environmental Protection Act of 1990

United States/Mexico

Integrated Border Environmental Plan (1992)

Chap3.fm Page 18 Sunday, August 19, 2001 6:17 PM



1999 CRC Press

LLC

REFERENCES

Pollution Control in the United States, Evaluating the System, J. Clarence Davies and Jan Mazurek, Resources

for the Future, 1998.

Direct Effect of European Law and the Regulation of Dangerous Substances, Christopher J. M. Smith, Gordon

and Breach Publishers, 1995.

Environmental Change and International Law, edited by Edith Brown Weiss, United Nations University Press,

1992.

International Environmental Law and Policy, David Hunter, James Salzman, Durwood Zaelke, Foundation

Press, 1998.

Environmental Management Systems, Jay G. Martin and Gerald J. Edgley, Governments Institutes, 1998.
International Environmental Auditing, David D. Nelson, Government Institutes, 1998.
Precautionary Legal Duties and Principles of Modern International Environmental Law, Harold Hohmann,

Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, 1998.

Environmental Management in European Companies, Success Stories and Evaluation, edited by Jobst Conrad,

Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1998.

Pollution Control in the United States, Evaluating the System, J. Clarence Davies and Jan Mazurek, Resources

for the Future, 1998.

Public Policies for Environmental Protection, Editor, Paul R. Portney, Resources for the Future, 1992.
Environmental Strategies Handbook, A Guide to Effective Policies & Practices, Rao V. Kolluru, McGraw-

Hill, Inc. 1994.

Chap3.fm Page 19 Sunday, August 19, 2001 6:17 PM