Leaders must anticipate resistance to bold, new ideas
In the late 1980s and early ‘90s, the Ohio Department of Commerce began discussing the formalization of programs to regulate the safe operation of underground fuel storage tanks (USTs), in addition to the safe removal of aging, leaking tanks that contained petroleum and other hazardous substances. The early indication was that rules and regulations would be issued by a new subdepartment called the Bureau of Underground Storage Tank Regulations (BUSTR).
Park districts and other public-property owners had previously buried USTs to fuel their fleets, most notably before World War II. There was little or no awareness that, as the tanks aged, they could leech their contents into the surrounding soil. As the Environmental Protection Agency grew in size and power, it began reviewing industry practices like burying USTs and found a need to organize and inventory all potential hazards.
Introducing A New Idea
In the summer of 1984, as the Park District I worked for (for 37 years) began organizing its hazard information, the planning department decided that an intern would locate the tanks and develop an inventory, including the status of each one.
As a new hire, I was designated as the intern and began my investigation. I set goals with my supervisor, then compiled a list of the managers who directed business (e.g., cut grass, cleaned bathrooms, removed trash in cans and along roadways) at each location. I met with them on-site, developed and recorded a “history” of each tank, and photographed the related equipment (e.g., pumps, meters, gauges).
I started with a park that housed larger tanks—a 6,000-gallon, unleaded tank and a 2,000-gallon, diesel tank. I had learned several “tightness testing” methods to determine if tanks were leaking. Sure enough, the environmental consultant determined the results proved leakage. The next step was to release a bid for the safe removal and remediation of the site. A month later, the awarded bidder pulled the tank, deposited it on an EPA-approved disposal site, and remediated the land. For two years, my park district checked test wells on-site and monitored results until the soils absorbed the contaminants and the land was declared safe. Then came the biggest challenge—how would we replace the tank? I didn’t support the idea of placing another “time bomb” in the ground. Wouldn’t we just be replanting another problem for the next guy to deal with in 50 years?
As I continued my research, I learned of a new idea that was becoming popular—above-ground storage tanks (ASTs). In speaking with several manufacturers, I learned that the public was reluctant to embrace ASTs. Many people worried that the tanks would explode since they were exposed to the elements and “vulnerable,” as opposed to the USTs. I went back to my supervisor and realized we had whittled down the list of tanks from 52 inefficient locations to 27 strategic spots. We conducted more research and found the ASTs to be safe, highly efficient, and the perfect solution for what we sought. We soon understood our replacement plan would require a lot of “selling” to the public. But the ASTs were such an ideal fit for our needs. They even came in models that had a double wall in the middle to maintain both unleaded and diesel at the same site. Each tank had a surrounding, walled “moat” that could contain leakage of any type. The EPA even approved the model.
So, my project moved along at a steady pace. Tanks were removed left and right, and temporary 500-gallon ASTs were brought in on skids at each location until we finalized where to place them. I put together a slideshow presentation, scheduled appearances at city council meetings, and invited the public to ask any and all questions they had.
Working Through Resistance
The first meeting was a disaster. An older gentleman was adamant that above-ground tanks were bombs that would explode upon the slightest impact. In my final negotiation to install the tank, I promised a land-made “horseshoe” that encircled the tank and made it look like a military bunker. I photographed the installation and used it in the slideshow for later presentations. More than once, the photo elicited a few laughs from the crowd because it was overkill. However, a few cities asked me to replicate the bunker.
Over time, and after a few successful installations, there was less panic and soon the EPA was involved again, regulating AST implementations/installations. They learned as they went along, and so did I. One could say we grew up together.
My experience taught me a primary lesson—since people are naturally resistant to change, projects that introduce new ideas or technologies must be implemented gradually with a great deal of transparency.
As representatives of public agencies, we must shoulder the burden and use due diligence when presenting nuances to the public, and do so in a way that makes things clear while minimizing resistance.
As today’s rapid technology advances challenge even the most sophisticated “students of life,” all progress hinges on the ability to interpret, understand, and welcome change. The time it takes to make people comfortable will be what “greases the tracks.” Despite all the AI claims, it will never be a tool we fully embrace until scientists understand that the public’s approval and acceptance are steps that cannot be skipped.
