RE: The spectrum of public involvement - Comment to Dan Dozier

[Mark F. Bohne <hilltop@lrbcg.com>]

How true your statement is, "If you lived near a Superfund site, public information, in my opinion, is more [than] just publically available information from an EPA database. I think the Agency has a responsibility to notifiy people directly, through mailings or radio and tv spots or newspaper ads (or a combination of all of the above) about the site and -- and this is where the spectrum of levels of involvement come in -- of other avenues of involvement, if people are interested." 

An example of how the federal EPA has neglected to do this in the past is the Erie County Landfill, in Erie County, Ohio. While concerned citizens were fighting (through the Ohio Environmental Review Board) a permit modification at the site, and trying to "discover" information about past indescretions, the site was NFRAPed right under our noses. The "research" used to NFRAP the site was terribly flawed.

If we had know such action was to occur, we would have presented relevant information for proper consideration.

Usually, the "research" used to NFRAP a site is presented by the the pollutors through the state EPA (and in Ohio, that's not a real threat). With municipal sites there is usually a great amount of political pressure to bear. True facts. presented by a concerned public, in a timely fashion, can move political mountains.