RE: When EPA is non-responsive

[Bruce Engelbert <engelbert.bruce@epa.gov>]

Marci:  Thank you for sharing your frustrating experiences at Sugar Creek with us.  I wish I could promise that what you describe would not happen again.  I think over the last decade we have learned and have made progress, though we all agree we have a long way to go.

I want to add to your thoughts about the "illusion of involvement."  Peter Senge, who wrote The Fifth Discipline" makes the distinction between "participatory openness" and "reflective openness."  EPA has become reasonably good at the former, namely providing opportunities for expressing opinions, even if these opportunities are not always as convenient and accessible as they should be.  We are decidedly not so good at reflective openness, which is listening with empathy and changing our plans when comments have merit.  This is,in part, a legacy of an EPA culture that has been dominated by scientists and lawyers who, by training, and to some extent temperament (please excuse the generalization here), are not as good with people skills or at being open to ideas from the outside.

There are people in EPA who are working hard to change this.  And though it may not always seem like it, there are positive developments.  In the Superfund program we now have some very enlightened remedial project managers who "get it" and are practicing meaningful public involvement.  We are doing our best to increase their numbers.  The ideas and suggestions we are getting through this dialogue will help us to take another step.