RE: Identifying the public

[DeAnne Butterfield <bmhbutterfield@qwest.net>]

Keith:  You raise excellent points that resonate with me.  In terms of your query about "life cycle," I think it should go even deeper.  Discussions in other places in this dialogue have been about infusing PIP values, attitudes, practices and training into the day-to-day operations and management of the agency both for technical people and policy makers.  This is important because no agency, even with good intentions, can prescribe procedures to be used in every situation.  That comes from the old regulatory approach.  The people working inside the agency need to design PIP into a work plan just as they design other elements (i.e. not after the technical and policy path is already decided and underway). This will look different each time.  

On another note, there has been fairly good success at the Rocky Flats DOE site in designing PIP around the needs of the public and not the programs.  For example, it used to be that the RCRA people held their meetings, CERCLA and NEPA likewise, and if there was not a legal driver other programs didn't do PIP at all.  Today, it is mostly seamless where the public is engaged around issues independent of which program or programs might be involved.  Ditto for whether it is an EPA or state-delegated decision.  The participation is structured after an annual "summit" where policy and strategy are discussed and agreed to among the public, the permitee and the regulators.  Then incremental implementation decision processes can be linked to the big picture.  This is only possible with a public-first attitude and not bureaucrats and community relations staff trying to comply with regulations on how to do PIP.  

DeAnne

ps hi Steve T