You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
6

[–] carlosos 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

The problem with this is that the EPA didn't cause it. They hired a company for the clean up that caused it. I know that the EPA isn't the most liked organization but the focus should be on the company that actually caused this but then the article wouldn't make sense anymore.

0
1

[–] teatime 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

This. It's a tricky situation. We could let the EPA hire government workers for tasks like this, but they would probably spend more money moving equipment and people around the US to deal with issues than they would spend on a contractor. They could require that the contracted companies have more insurance or meet more guidelines, but then you need people to enforce that. There are EPA employees that are dispatched to evaluate a possible violation. Maybe they could be trained to identify potential issues and act as a consultant and supervisor on projects. I'm not really sure what the best thing they could do to avoid this in the future is without a complete system change. There are still so many openings for corruption and "short cuts."