RE: When EPA is non-responsive

[Marci Culley <culley@eudoramail.com>]

The question has been posed: are there times when EPA is non-responsive?  Of course, the answer is YES!  While I realize that the reasons are complex and dependent upon unique local circumstances, it is crucial that EPA and other relevant agencies pay attention to those affected (at the "fence-line" and beyond) by contamination...they have valuable local knowledge that regulators often don't have.  There is substantial literature that lends credence to this (see Brown, 1997; Bullard, 1997; Pena & Gallegos, 1997).  

For example, a locally-organized group of folks (CLEANUP) in Sugar Creek, MO (RCRA site..BP Amoco refinery) have repeatedly given input regarding the siting of air monitoring equipment and other data collection sites both onsite (on the refinery property proper) and off-site (in the residential neighborhood). While EPA Region VII and other involved agencies (MDNR, ATSDR) have taken some of this into consideration, crucial local input has been set aside.  The siting of air monitoring equipment in particular has caused quite a stir.  More than 500 petroleum "odor reports" have been conducted (and e-mailed to regulators nightly) by area residents.  Despite this, the siting of the equipment was in an area known by these residents to be relatively "odor free."  The excuses provided by agencies was related to BP Amoco's property ownership (would not place equipment on their residential property...and they are buying up large sections of the community adjacent to the refinery) and traffic (there is very little traffic in this area of Sugar Creek, MO given that most of these homes are vacant and owned by Amoco).  CLEANUP argued that public access-ways and other city-owned property in areas with consistent petroleum odors would have been an option.  This was ultimately dismissed.  

This has had significant implications...the ATSDR bases their health consultation on the information provided...if it is inadequate then why do it??  I would like to remind everyone that it is not the extent or "allowance" of public participation that matters...it is the nature of that participation.  If the public has an opportunity to speak but not be heard or have power in real decision-making, then going through the motions to provide the illusion of "involvement" is what we are forced to settle for.