Red Tape, Regulations, and Environmental Crimes

“When I went to Ireland recently,” says environmental auditor and consultant Molly Long, “I sat in a pub with a pint of Guinness while being lectured to by an average citizen of Dublin about what environmental terrorists we Americans are. He didn’t know we were environmental consultants. It was a really interesting perspective. He said we do a terrible job of protecting the environment.”

Long is a former hazardous waste inspector for the state of Indiana. Today she is in high demand as an ISO 14001 auditor and an environmental consultant, two services she provides through A.W.E. [Agriculture. Wildlife. Environmental.] Consulting, Inc. As an enforcer of laws, an environmental auditor, and a consultant, Long has worked extensively with a wide variety of businesses, industries, and government groups. In this interview, she brings broad perspective to the topic of environmental laws and regulations.

Molly Long, Environmental Auditor and Consultant

We interviewed Long from her office in Michigan City, Indiana. What follows is the first of a three-part interview.

BPGL: What was your response to the criticism that businesses in the U.S. are environmental terrorists?

LONG: I wanted to listen, to hear what that take was. I didn’t want to pollute it with my own opinion. It was an eye opener. They thought our environmental laws were weak and shabby and didn’t do a good job of protecting the environment. And when I think back on it, they’re right. Our environmental laws have not done a good job of protecting the environment. But they’ve done a great job of confusing everybody.

Businesses constantly struggle to consistently comply with the laws and regulations – forget about trying to improve the environment. Our environmental laws are so complicated, we can’t really even tell if they are effective or not at protecting the environment.

BPGL: Are you talking about red tape?

LONG: Yes. Red tape is one of the biggest environmental tragedies we have. Having been an enforcer of laws and regulations, I can tell you that red tape is probably 90 percent of the problem. People can’t dig through it, and they can’t put proper resources toward physically protecting the environment because they are too worried about what kind of records they need to keep. Besides creating a red tape nightmare that kills more trees than it saves, we have actually weakened true environmental protection through our environmental laws because they are designed to manage a lowest common denominator for environmental protection that applies across a broad spectrum of regulated businesses. This results in some industries being under regulated and others being regulated out of business, or choosing to go somewhere else.

If you want to look at the causes of economic collapse, one of them is losing our industrial base. There is no country that can become strong and have a good, sound economy without an industrial base. For example, the steel companies are heavily regulated and cause a lot of pollution, but we need the goods that they make. We should be working closely with them to make sure we are regulating the right things environmentally and still allowing them to operate in a sustainable way. The very environmental laws that govern us are part of our problem.

BPGL: More of a problem than causing endless paperwork and confusion?

LONG: Yes, because often we aren’t regulating the right things, things that can have major environmental impacts. Remember the coal ash incident that happened recently in the Tennessee Valley? Coal ash is not regulated. We’ve taught all industry and business to focus only on those things that they can get in trouble for, not on those things that they should be taking care of for the simple reason that they’re bad for the environment. Just like with any other legislation, lobbyists and influence groups all come into play in the making of environmental laws. When I was a regulator, we had a saying: “Regulate by the part per billion and exempt by the ton.” Coal ash is one of those things that gets exempted by the ton.

We were raking mom and pop organization over the coals for miniscule amounts of pollution, (and sometimes putting them out of business) while the big guys could dump literally tons of polluting substances because the material was exempted from environmental regulation. It was exempted because the big guys had the big bucks to pay for lobbyists to get them the regulations they wanted Meanwhile, the big guys are allowed to dump tons and tons and tons of this stuff, because it’s not regulated. What that means is, some lobbyist got in there and got what they wanted. The problem with laws and regulations is that they are subject to that very kind of influence. On one hand that sounds evil, but on the other hand, you can’t blame industry, because they are trying to find a way to operate and stay in this country.

Laws and regulations covering industry are not as strict in some parts of the country.

Another confusing issue is that laws and regulations covering industry are not as strict in some parts of the country. Let’s say you’re in Alabama and you really want to bring industry down there. It’s the hot spot right now — all the South is the hot spot for industry. They’re giving every incentive they can think of to get industry to come down there. And let me tell you, the laws and regulations in Alabama are not the same as they are in Maine, or California, or Iowa, or Chicago. They’re going to do what they can to get the business down there.

BPGL: Does that mean they’re going to weaken their restrictions in the South? How can they do that?

LONG: The rules are set up to where the EPA is the federal baseline, and you can’t be weaker than the federal baseline. But the federal baselines are trying to cover 50 different states and the U.S. protectorates, as well, so we have lots of different scenarios, and the [federal] rules are going to be very broad and general.

States are authorized to run their own EPA programs, and they’re expected to make more stringent regulations based on the more specific environments in the state. There are lots of different contexts for the type of environment that needs protecting. Think of a business that operates in the middle of the desert versus a business right next to a wetland versus a business in the middle of a forest versus a business in the middle of a neighborhood.

BPGL: What are some examples of those different contexts?

LONG: I’ve seen some steel mills that are in the middle of a major city, and I’ve seen others that are out in the middle of nowhere. They have very different environmental concerns. The one steel mill that’s in the middle of the city is basically in a funnel, surrounded by multi-million dollar homes. They are scrutinized by the community every second of the every day, and people are concerned about their property value in addition to the environment. At this mill, everything it has is under cover. Their scrap yards are covered, so they can minimize noise and dust. And they have certain loading procedures for their ladles so that they don’t make noise.

But something that’s out in the middle of nowhere, and nobody’s around to hear or see, that’s a whole different story. Another steel mill has no human neighbors, but is very committed to protecting thousands of acres of forest nearby. It’s all about context. There’s no regulation or set of regulations that can cover every situation in a way that’s right for everyone. Instead of issuing laws based on theoretical science and the interests of lobbyists, regulators should be working closely with industry to determine solutions for environmental protection that are tailored to the business and the environmental context it operates in.

BPGL: With so many different contexts, how well do the regulations work?

Steel mill regulations are often made by people who have never worked in a steel mill.

LONG: One of the biggest problems we have in this country is that we’re piling all these regulations on different industries, and the regulations are made by people who don’t necessarily understand how things work on the level that they’re regulating. In other words, somebody is making regulations for a steel company who has never worked in a steel company. They don’t know how it functions, and that’s a problem because they can’t make the regulations match very closely to what needs to be done.

We’ve already got hundreds of thousands, if not millions and more, different regulations, and it varies from state to state, sometimes from city to city, sometimes from one area of a city to another area of the city, depending on the size of the city. We’re regulating all these fine distinctions, especially when it comes to something like air. We have all these complicated air regulations. But at the end of the day, you can’t subdivide air. You can’t say, This portion of air is clean, and this portion right next to it is not clean. It just doesn’t work that way. As my father says, that’s like having a no peeing section in a swimming pool.

BPGL: That brings me to a comment we heard from a family in Iowa. Their pool service company said that the acidity of their swimming pool had changed in the last few years because of the increasing number of coal plants in China.

LONG: Exactly. Weather patterns are worldwide. Air is certainly affected by weather, and weather is affected by air. What we do here is affecting what happens over there, and vice versa. We can’t just say, “You make your air as clean as possible, and everything will be okay.”

We end up pushing a lot of our problems away instead of dealing with them. We say, “Well, we just won’t have this industry here next to us, because it will be bad,” instead of working together to find a solution that is sustainable for everybody. It’s not sustainable if you’re putting all the nasties somewhere else. Then you’ve just made a problem for somebody else, and you’ve greatly increased inefficiency, greatly increased cost, greatly increased all the problems that go with it.

Another big problem with environmental regulation in this country is that it sets a very adversarial tone between industry and government. It sets up a fear among business owners: I could go to jail if I do this wrong! That’s the way our justice system works, but it doesn’t stop the bad guys from doing wrong – it just makes the average law-abiding citizen scared and confused. Then to top it off, the EPA does not offer any assistance or even a consistent interpretation of their laws. This causes many people to accidentally violate laws simply because of ignorance of them or misunderstanding the law’s intent.

That certainly doesn’t mean there aren’t people who don’t willfully violate environmental laws. When I was an inspector, there were people who were sent to jail through my inspections, and they deserved it. There were some really bad actors.

BPGL: Give an example of an environmental crime that got someone sent to jail.

Dumping hazardous wastes is illegal.

LONG: An electroplater was going out of business and was dumping all his chemicals down the drain to the city. The city traced it back, shut off his sewer access, and called the state to investigate. By the time I got there, he was trying to sell his wastes and extra chemicals and trying to leave the state, possibly the country. In his parking lot, he was burning what he couldn’t sell. We also found out he had made a deal with the city to sell his polluted property (they didn’t know) to use for a children’s activity center. Based on my investigation and those of other state and federal agencies, he went to the federal pen.

Another company was picking up people’s waste and claiming to properly dispose of it. But it turned out they were dumping it in various fields around the county. We went to their residence to investigate and discovered a shed full of bulging drums of unknown material, which led to a big clean-up operation. These people also went to prison.

But that isn’t really the end goal — that only upon threat of death or going to jail that you should do something. You should do things because it makes sense to you and for the community, and because it helps your business. That’s the way a business has to work or it can’t succeed. A country where businesses can’t succeed is not going to have a strong economy, and countries with bad economies can’t do a good job of protecting the environment.

Part 1 of 3

Part 1: Red Tape, Regulations, and Environmental Crimes (Top of Page)

Julia Wasson

Blue Planet Green Living (Home Page)

The Green Clean Challenge: Full Circle vs. Green Works

Today, I must boldly go where no cleaner has been for a long, long time — my bathroom. When guests stay, I am told to keep the door closed, if not locked.

Okay, it’s a guy thing. I consider it a good way to build my resistance to all types of bacteria. It keeps me healthy. And it’s effective at keeping the cat out of my bathroom. She used to go in there to drink from the toilet. It’s a wonder she’s alive.

Ready for Round 1: Full Circle vs. Green Works. Photo: J Wasson

My wife uses many creative expressions to describe my sink, tub and toilet. For months she has asked, begged and now, finally, firmly requested that I clean it.

“Yes, Dear, I will.”

“What? Something’s up. Why are you agreeing now?”

“I had a plan. I purposely let it get real dirty so I would have a perfect environment to test our natural cleaners.”

“Yeah, yeah, whatever.”

[Author’s note: Before I begin this challenge, I just want to mention my prejudices. I have for a long time been a huge fan of the Sierra Club. Just this last year, Sierra Club made a deal with the Clorox Company to allow their name to be used on their Green Works™ products. This was considered by many as a sellout, since for years Sierra Club was the key combatant against the evils of chlorine — a huge polluter in all paper production — and Clorox produced chlorine. For more on this go to SourceWatch.com; search for Sierra Club and Green Works.

I can be objective in my observations for one reason. Just having a company as large as Clorox even thinking of producing an environmentally safe cleaner is extraordinary. As a marketing specialist, I understand what brand recognition can do to the consumer’s thought process. I applaud Clorox for all their efforts to “go green.” I will allow the flag of truce to fly while I am testing these products, but may not be able to when I write about the new paper mill just up the road.]

So, here I am, with today’s cleaners going head to head. In this corner, “Green Works,” by Clorox. And in this corner, “All Purpose Cleaner” by Full Circle.

I purchased both in one-quart-size spray bottles. The bottles are both number 1 recyclable plastic. That’s good.

Green Works by Clorox. Photo: J Wasson

The cost of the Green Works was $3.15, and the price tag on Full Circle says $4.19. Ouch! Both are higher than I am used to paying. My old fave, back before I knew the risks, was Formula 409; it’s also produced by Clorox and only costs $2.99 at my local store.

The ingredients listed for the Green Works pale-green fluid include: “Filtered water, coconut-based cleaning agent, (Nonionic surfactant; alkyl polyglucoside), corn-based ethanol, SDA- 3C), glycerin, fragrance with essential oil, biodegradable preservative, blue and yellow colorant.”

The ingredients listed for All Purpose Cleaner by Full Circle, which is pale yellow in color, include: “Nature derived cleaning agent, (anionic and/or nonionic surfactants), water, quality control agents, and plant derived fragrances, and/or oils.”

On the front of the Green Works bottle, I see the word “Natural,” as in “Natural All Purpose Cleaner.” Anytime I see the word “natural,” I want to know I am not being lied to. There is no real definition, even from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission. “Natural” is a highly overused word. We have been scammed by that one since Bonanza was on TV.

After visiting the Clorox website, I read that they have established a “very stringent standard” for the new Clorox Green Works products. “The ingredients must come from renewable resources, be biodegradable and free of petrochemicals. Green Works™ cleaners are at least 99% natural. In certain cases we had to use synthetic ingredients, like the preservative and green colorant. But we’re working hard to develop natural alternatives so the entire line can be 100% natural.”

This is good. Not perfect, but very good. I would have dumped the green dye thing because:

1.) Dyes are scary, always were, always will be.

2.) Who are they trying to fool? You don’t have to be this obvious. A green label on the bottle would suffice.

3.) And lose the word “Natural.” Go with the words “Safe to use around children.” Mothers will love it.

4.) Your cleaner uses coconut base as the cleaning agent. Why not use coconut scent instead of another essential oil (lemon) for the smell? 5.) Why have any scent at all? Is there some unwritten rule that a cleaner has to smell?

All Purpose Cleaner by Full Circle. Photo: J Wasson

The ingredients for Full Circle do not include any dyes. Score one there. And on their label they do not say, “Natural,” they use “Eco-Friendly.” Again, a bit nebulous, but politically correct. Score again. Their front label says it contains Lemon Grass. Why do you need to add a smell to a cleaner? Is it to cover up the smell of the dirt you are cleaning? If your cleaner works, you shouldn’t have anything left that smells bad. I vote for zero scent in all cleaners. My eyes water, my throat swells shut from all perfumes anyway.

Now, to the competition.

I’ve gathered two of the same bristle brushes, two similar terry cloth rags, and I am wearing rubber gloves. We step to my suitably dirty fiberglass bathtub. Yuck! Here we go.

First we use the Full Circle All Purpose Cleaner on the 1/3 of the tub with the drain. I spray and notice a light lemon smell. I scrub with the cloth. A little of the grime comes off. Spray again. Let it soak. Scrub with the cloth, and a little more comes off. Spray once again. This time I use the brush with a little muscle. The dirt is coming off. With some more work, it all comes off.

Lesson number 1: Cleaning this tub is not going to be easy.

Lesson number 2: Maybe these new, environmentally friendly cleaners just don’t clean as well as the old, toxic ones.

Next, I spray the Green Works on the middle third of the tub. I smell a slight lime scent. Not too strong, not as strong as Formula 409, but still a scent. I scrub with the cloth. I spray again and scrub with the cloth. Very little is coming off. I spray more, I use the bristle brush and some muscle. The surface begins to whiten. I know I’m old and weak, but this is embarrassing. My eyes and lungs feel fine; it’s my ego that hurts.

Eco-friendly cleaners may not work as quickly, but they don

Now, for the sake of scientific control, I finish the last third of the tub with Formula 409. But first, I turn on the bathroom fan. I hold my breath and spray. Most of the dirt comes off with a few swipes of the rag. The rest comes off after the second spray and scrubbing with a cloth. The tub is clean, but I can’t breathe. I fall out the bathroom door (dramatically, so my wife will give me sympathy).

What are we sacrificing by using a little muscle? Our lives. Look at the bottles of 409, Tilex and Lysol brands. The warnings begin on the front of the bottles: “KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN.” Hmmm. That should tell you something. Now, to the back of the Tilex: “WARNING. Causes substantial but temporary eye injury and can irritate skin.” Oh, good. My “substantial” eye injury will only be temporary.

Many of the old products are poisons as much as they are cleaners. You can’t touch them, breathe them or let the fumes come into contact with your eyes. Yet, we are so comfortable around them. We have been raised with a series of ads that made us clinically paranoid of “germs.” Then we bought into the convenience of no-scrub cleaning. We bought the propaganda, and we bought the products.

Now, hopefully, we are smarter. We have a new generation of cleaning products to use that are not full of poisons. We may have to work a little harder, and we may have to pay a little more, but our lungs, our skin and our eyes will be healthier. So will pregnant mothers, babies, pets, and our elderly parents.

So for this round, I’m giving the win to Full Circle. It cleaned a little better and has no dyes. Next time, we’ll test two more cleaners that are labeled “safe,” “green” or “natural.” The winners of that round will go for the championship. Before I’m through with this series, I will make my own natural cleaners from stuff we can eat. Then, we’ll test our home-brews against the store-bought champ. Stay tuned.

Joe Hennager

Blue Planet Green Living (Home Page)

Related Post:

The Green-Clean Challenge Begins