The Politics of Environmental Cleanup
-
Cleanup is not just a technical activity, it is also a political process -
To be successful in the environmental cleanup business, a company needs to have effective technology AND resources to navigate the political process because cleanup is not just a technical activity; it is also a political process.
The environmental cleanup process seems straightforward: investigate the nature and extent of the contamination, identify the responsible parties, assess and design the scope of work, budget cleanup funds, identify the appropriate contractors and then clean up the site. The technical alternatives of “BUG-BURY-BURN” are straightforward solutions for cleanup, but the political steps and decisions of project jurisdiction and oversight, “best” technical solution to use (for the benefits of the oversight agency AND the victims of the contamination problem AND environmentalists), government and community involvement, and acceptable levels of “cleanup” for all parties can significantly extend the time to define, write remediation plans, win bids, deal with environmentalists and government “inspectors”, initiate work, get paid and eventually complete the cleanup.
Cleanup is not just a technical activity; it is also a political process. With a legal cleanup activity, the future use of the contaminated site needs to be determined as well as the technology to support the future use (e.g. cleanup the beach so it can be used by people again verses closing for many years and letting nature takes it course). The process of identifying the issues, setting cleanup goals and defining appropriate solutions constitutes the “politics of cleanup”. The parties to the process include federal, state, and local governmental agencies, community members, and pollution generators who all need to form a working partnership to develop cleanup expectations, monitor progress for cleanup success. The dynamics of the partnership and how well it is managed will determine the extent, time line and success of the cleanup.
The environmental cleanup industry today is just that, an industry, with well-established trading partners who have mutually beneficial, co-dependent relationships. Some critics deride the environmental industry as a Conspiracy of Compliance, but that characterization is unfair. Each party has its own role in the industry, which is driven, first and foremost, by government regulation (which often benefits the growth of government agencies through long term projects requiring more staff and higher budgets).
The “generators” (formerly known as the “polluters”) face potentially huge liabilities if they aggressively move to repair the cumulative damage caused, for example, by oil spills or leaky underground storage tanks. The way the laws are written and the regulations are enforced, a slow-but-steady approach is in their economic interests and often in the political interests of the government agencies and/or local and federal politicians.
In response to the need for taking action, generators hire engineering firms that meticulously measure the levels of pollution and generate reams of report pages. In many cases the physical clean-up efforts do not begin until years after identification of the problems but the engineers and the government agencies are at full employment to “study” the problem to determine the “best” remediation path. Best in most cases is what takes the longest while meeting state and federal mandates for “cleanup” to levels of future use.
The engineers who study a specific site and design the remediation response often are then deemed the best-qualified to manage the clean-up process. The industry standard is for clean-ups to be accomplished on a time-and-materials basis. There are no guarantees of results, and the clean-up effort takes as long as necessary. The longer it takes under a time-and-materials contract, the more the total fees increase for the firms hired to conduct the clean-up and the fees generated by the governmental agencies. This tedious treat-the-symptoms approach may produce only incremental improvements at the site, but it demonstrates a good-faith effort on the part of the generators to comply with applicable regulations.
The regulators, such as the EPA and corresponding state and local agencies, are another important component of the industry. A single hazardous waste site typically falls under the jurisdiction of a dozen to two dozen government agencies. These include Federal, state, regional, county, and city agencies for water, air, public safety, worker safety, etc. These agencies are trying their best, but they often have overlapping and competing responsibilities, with no single agency providing oversight of the overall clean-up process yet all want to get their “piece of the pie”.
By way of example, U.S. Microbics was invited to participate in a cleanup competition to see which technology could do the best job of cleaning-up contaminated beach sand. Of all the competing firms, U.S. Microbics delivered the best results in the least time for the lowest cost. The multiple governmental agencies and groups that judged the competition were pleased and impressed with the work of U.S. Microbics which eliminated the problem once and for all in a short period of time.
All that remained was for the judges to declare the test site cleaned-up and declare U.S. Microbics to be the winner of the competition. But the judges, outside environmental groups and the polluter were unable to agree on a precise definition of “clean” and thus the solution was to study the problem for 3 more years to the benefit of the oversight agency, the environmentalists (more contributions to champion their efforts), and the polluter who could defer major expenses until a new report was written and the problem solution revisited. The technology was right for the problem, but the political process overrides technology most of the time. To be successful, the political process must be managed just like the technology process.
Changing an industry takes time. Countless billions of dollars of liability are at stake, and the safest course of action (and maximum revenue generator) from the industry’s standpoint, is to study the problems over and over, then treat the symptoms on a time-and-materials “best efforts” basis using a technology that takes the longest time (a.k.a.: bury the problem, or burn the problem or “fluff” the soil to delay the cleanup) while meeting minimum cleanup standards. Open projects create government agency and contractor revenue, closed projects stop the revenue.
Bioremediation is a cheap and effective solution – it treats the problem not the symptom and is best for the victims of the contamination. Bury, burn and fluff are best for the contractors and government agencies but not the victims. Isn’t it time to revise this crazy system of political nonsense?
We believe it’s time for a change, and U.S. Microbics is leading the way with its bioremediation technology, completed projects, recognition by regulatory agencies and environmental groups, and its understanding of the political process. The next step is to partner with companies with strong political ties that can bridge the political process for the benefit of local politicians who are engaged to solve local problems, take the glory and get on to the next problem solution.
How do we tie all this experience and knowledge to using BUGS technology to help the victims of the Gulf Oil Spill? Stay tuned for the next chapter about our new SPILL KILL product line.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment