Replies

I am an industrial environmental specialist with 38 years of experience largely within this niche and branching out into mainstream process engineering as well. Not surprisingly, I have some perspectives from a variety of directions having worked for or with multinationals in petrochem, refining, heavy industry, food, mining, pharmaceutical, consulting, R&D, design, management, etc. and IMHO rate being well qualified for the following opinions.

First of all, I am relieved to not be an environmental engineer and am an unabashed and completely biased chemical engineer and microbiologist. In my experience, environmental engineers are largely involved with regulations and not so much on solutions. Solutions are important to me along with cost/benefit. I have rarely seen practical solutions or a fair cost/benefit come out of the EPA for way too many years. By contrast, I have found (most) State and local level environmental agencies practical to work with most of the time. Where there are problems or concerns to work through, States and locals are closest to the problem and these people usually seem more attune to working with industry actors instead of viewing them as an adversary.

Now though, to the EPA shrinking and all these specialists and scientists bailing out, I say good riddance. Early in my career, the EPA was a partner for solutions (see a theme here?). During these early years, I interfaced with and learned terrific things from EPA engineers that throughout my career have directly or indirectly influenced many of thing things I have been involved with. For many years, I had a well used library of EPA design and cost related publications on the bookshelf that were referred to for many millions of dollars worth of capital projects on what to do or not do in finding a way to a technical and economic fix or improvement to something. Eventually, I had to retire these references as technology and economics obsoleted them. Unfortunately, there has been nothing of equal utility from the EPA to replace them, and yes I have looked.

Why has there not been a continual emphasis on EPA tools to focus on solutions? My opinion is that the root of this started in the later 1970’s (Jimmy Carter), when the EPA changed their emphasis from solutions (engineers) to litigation (lawyers supported by various specialists/scientists such as the articles reports leaving the EPA in droves). Subsequent Presidents after Carter did little to nothing thus supporting this ever expanding perversion of the EPA’s original functions.

Anyway, good riddance to the EPA bureaucrats that have solved so little, at so great a cost in the cause of whatever you want to call it. I think the currant fad name is environmental justice. A functional EPA would be 90 to 95% smaller than it is now with maybe 1% of its current technical staffing carried forward to the new organization, This new organization would be along the line of privately managed technology centers such as the existing national laboratories (ex, Los Alamos and Sandia) or perhaps public/private partnerships with specialists from industries actively involved.