Yes, indeed! It could be series.
But one of the problems with dealing with the EPA, and other federal and state agencies, is that they like to be doing the bullying.
They bully by insisting that you devote whatever time they may deem necessary to address their concerns on their timeline, without any consideration for what other issues may be more pressing for you. This would be considered an intolerable imposition on a businessman, if it were anyone else. (Hi! I'm from the EPA and I need to speak with you. Please cancel all of your other plans and appointments for the day, while we deal with the issue that I have been assigned to address.)
Then the agency begins its bullying tactics. "Of course, if you won't see me now, I can come back with a search warrant to give me access to whatever i want to look at and with authority to speak with anyone I want. Further, any failure to abide by the regulations can cost you up to $10,000 per day that you are out fo compliance..." This is one heck of a threat to a small business man.
They love the "up to", since it gives them so much wiggle room. They can fine you a lot. They can fine you a little, or they can forgive the fine all together, at their whimsey. Also, they can characterize the incident any way they wish, regarding its potential impact on the environment, or on worker safety. Finally, they will let you know that they have the full money and power of the government to bring to bear upon you.
One of the main reasons they never want to meet with someone in a public, or semi-public forum is because it severely limits their abilities to bully, misrepresent, threaten or otherwise intimidate.
They will also threaten to simply padlock your business shut, if you fail to cooperate. And that is one heck of a threat to any business.
Lastly, isn't it ironic that the EPA sends such low level folks into the field. The EPA is a consummate bureaucracy. The managers virtually always close ranks around their underlings, no matter what egregious errors may have been committed. And in line with this, they often decide things in groups, with their collective "group think" excercises taking on far grander proportion than is warranted.
Despite the heartfelt beliefs among the EPA functionaries, a room full of 3 G-4 does not equal a G-12.
If we were to discuss the law we would certainly want to include the who-whats-whys-whens of the law. Regulatory costs/takings, infringements, etc, etc.
If we were to discuss administration of the law we would want to include subjects such as developement and implemetation of policy. Best Available Control Technology, Technical Feasibility and Economic Reasonability, legal rights and obligations, etc, etc.
In regard to events at the stamping plants there are numerous subjects to to discuss/ speculate on. Who escalated the situation? Was McNabbs reputation blemished by the state agency or by his own actions. Was the state agency wrong in calling in the EPA, should they have turned to the State Bureau of Investigation? etc, etc.