Images (58)
Document
| id |
id
621035358
|
|---|---|
| contentType |
contentType
document
|
| source |
source
import
|
Source image fields (6)
Extracted text
OCR Page 1 of 5805/18/98
08:00
I
002
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
TO:
Brad Campbell
FROM:
DETERMINED TO BE AN
Lisa Moore
RE:
Children's Environmental Protection Act
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
DATE:
May 15, 1998
INITIALS: 110 DATE: 06/28/11
I've attached a draft of the bill with the changes we'd be willing to make. As a preliminary
matter, I operate under one main constraint in changing the bill. Our intent in CEPA is to
force EPA, when it sets a health-based standard by conducting a risk assessment, to
consider the special vulnerabilities of children. The Senator has made this commitment
very directly and repeatedly. This is what she cares about, and she won't agree to change
the bill in any way that even gives the appearance of backing away from that commitment.
As this commitment is embodled in the President's executive order and EPA policy,
though, it should be one we can all feel comfortable writing into law. Moreover, as CEPA
is less stringent than FQPA, weakening CEPA can't really be justified in my mind.
While I think we can accommodate many of your changes and stay true to that
commitment, some go to the heart of the bill and can't be easily squared. I have some
alternative suggestions that I hope address your concerns.
A. Effect on Other Laws
You proposed two provisions which would limit the scope of CEPA. Starting with the
second first, you proposed language to provide that CEPA doesn't alter the substantive
standards of underlying environmental laws. While I can see that it might be possible for
section 503(a)(1) of our bill to live in harmony with this provision, I think your language
would nullify section 503(a)(2). Section 503(a)(2) requires the Administrator to "ensure that
all Environmental Protection Agency standards protect children and other vulnerable
of CEPA.
subpopoulations with an adequate margin of safety." For us, 503(a)(2) is the whole point
While I understand the supermandate issue this ralses, I think we can cure it by going in
the other direction from the one you propose. The regulatory reform issue on this is, In
part, that such bills are really back-door efforts to change the substance of all
environmental laws while professing to just be changing process. We can meet this
concern by being up-front about it. In fact, we're not like the reg. reform proponents
because we're not trying to be sneaky. We mean to be changing the way EPA does
business under these other laws. We can meet the supermandate issue by simply
delineating the specific environmental laws to which we mean the provision to apply.
duding water
Ppeline Resurndes subjety
Relations
belongs_to