random6x7 t1_jarq87l wrote
Reply to comment by RaceSignificant1794 in Here’s the real reason the EPA doesn’t want to test for toxins in East Palestine | Stephen Lester by hahahoudini
Making Norfolk Southern do it is not uncommon for regulatory agencies. You tell the project proponent they have to do something, they hire consultants to do the thing, you make sure their work is correct and up to standards. Regulatory agencies would need a much, much higher budget if they did that all in-house, and why not make Norfolk Southern do all the work and pay for it, as long as the EPA makes them do it properly.
The fact that they already have a draft plan in review is fast for the government. Yes, it sucks, but there are so many levels of oversight, plus the consultants near me and probably in Ohio are already hella busy, that it's not a surprise. Should the EPA already know the base background dioxin contamination across the US? Sure, but now we go back to budgeting issues. No one wants to pay for this stuff until the tragedies happen.
KentSmashtacos t1_jas2ion wrote
Several points.. Why couldn't the EPA simply require payment for the necessary supplies and costs to perform said tests in-house by charging NS the bill. Seems obvious.
The background dioxin contamination would likely be recorded in surrounding areas by referencing commercial farms that perform regular soil tests.
random6x7 t1_jas7w0z wrote
They're probably just not set up for it. It takes time to do the necessary surveys and testing and report preparation. It takes less time, but still a lot of it, to write contracts, send them out for bid, and choose a consultant to do the work. The government at all levels is already understaffed thanks to years of hiring freezes and budget cuts, and I can guarantee the Trump years did a number on people's willingness to join the EPA.
Plus, what do they do when Norfolk Southern stalls on paying the bill? Add higher interest rates? I mean, sure, but levying huge fines while they get dragged through the court of public opinion would be worse than just a bill they refuse to pay while everyone else forgets about the incident.
hahahoudini OP t1_jarynkl wrote
Because something is not uncommon does not make it a good practice.
random6x7 t1_jas8tmb wrote
It's not as nefarious as you think it is. There are absolutely bad actors, and some agencies and/or field offices within agencies just suck. But no one gets into environmental review to strike it rich or destroy the environment, except -maybe- the political appointees.
This also isn't the EPA telling Norfolk Southern to do whatever they want. This is more likely them saying "you -will- clean up your mess and do it right". If you doubt that, well, a lot of the regs have transparency and public outreach built in so the interested public can keep an eye on things. Alas, though, the interested public often doesn't care until it directly affects them.
hahahoudini OP t1_jasdu8u wrote
Those dying from 9/11's aftermath would like a word with you about that. Source
random6x7 t1_jasiaib wrote
Like I said, there are absolutely bad actors. Those orders came from the political appointees, too. I'm just saying, the way things are set up now isn't a conspiracy. It has problems, but it was set up mostly in good faith by people doing the best they could with what they had and knew.
hahahoudini OP t1_jatjzlk wrote
Yeah, my perspective isn't that the EPA is some nefarious organization, i'm just saying no one paying attention should take anything they say or do wholesale, you know?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments