Superfund example (was RE: Introduction)

[Rich Puchalsky <rpuchalsky@att.net>]

Carolyn Offutt writes about Superfund:

"I am interested in knowing how to better present environmental information to the public, particularly via the Internet. Are there tools that will help involve the public participate in environmental decision-making? Should we be presenting more information via maps, graphs, audio files, videos? Should we provide information and web pages to mobile phones and handheld devices? Should we video-cast public meetings?"

Here's an example of access to EPA data.  I am working on a project for which I need information about PRPs (Potentially Responsible Parties) for Superfund sites.  Once I analyze the data, I will be giving it to someone who will in turn redistribute it to thousands of people, who themselves may redistribute it to others.  So it will influence many, many local decisions.  There was only one problem: I couldn't get the data.

(Note: I'm being a little unfair in linking this example to Carolyn Offutt's statement.  The data I was looking for was actually in OECA, a different office than hers.  But I think the example is a good one, so I'll continue.)

The PRP information isn't in CERCLIS, the usual database for Superfund information.  It's in something that used to be called SETS.  But lo and behold, SETS was no longer being provided by the office or sold by NTIS.  There was a contact person for the data listed on the EPA Web page.  I left messages on their answering machine and their boss's repeatedly over a month: no answer. After trying a few other avenues it became obvious that EPA didn't really want the public to get this information.  

I finally got the database, under a different name, through a route that I won't mention.  But if I hadn't known someone who knew someone I would never have gotten it.  Is that public access?

This is an example of how informed public comment depends on a chain of events, and how if any link of the chain is broken, the whole chain is.  In order to have good public comment on Superfund sites, people need to be informed about those sites.  In order for people to be informed, they must get the information from EPA, either directly or through an intermediary.  In order for them to get the data, EPA must be willing to provide the data.  And in order for EPA to be able to provide the data, EPA must collect the data in the first place.  

This dialogue should rightly focus on the last link of the chain, the actual public comment event, but we shouldn't forget that for it to happen all the earlier stages must happen as well.  Bells and whistles like maps, graphs, audio files, and mobile phone displays are nice, but do little good if they only re-present information that people can already get, while other information is carefully hidden.