RE: joining dialogue by fax

[Armando Quintanilla <kahn.lisa@epa.gov>]

Below is the second message from Armando Quintanilla, who faxed this in today.  Please reply within this dialogue and we will pass the info on to him, or feel free to contact Armando directly.

Monday, July 16 Collaborative Processes

Upon review of my experiences in the public participation process, I found that EPA has failed to perform in their responsibilities and promises by not taking citizens seriously and by not facilitating stakeholder input into all levels of the EPA decision-making process.

Let me be more specific about EPA.  On July 21, 2001, EPA is having a public dialogue on Improving Public Involvement and Decision Making.  The meeting will be held at Christ the King Church, which is miles away from the R&H; Refinery and Kelly AFB.

The R&H; Refinery is a Superfund site.  Kelly AFB has been deferred by EPA as a Superfund Site. In this regard, not one single stakeholder living in South San Antonio, between these two contaminated sites was involved in the decision to hold this meeting miles away from the contamination.  Por Que?

Is it because EPA Region VI has never heard or known that the fundamentals of any community involvement must be:
*	Inclusive
*	Responsive
*	Open
*	Interactive
*	Transparent

The meeting being held at Christ the King Church Saturday at 2:00 pm, July 21st raised the following questions and comments from the contaminated community:
*	When will EPA involve the citizens living in the contaminated areas of South San Antonio?
*	Why the short notice?
*	Why is the meeting being held on Saturday?  Los sabados son dias de casa and I have many errands to run.
*	The contamination stands out like an ugly sore.  It has robbed us of the economic value of our homes.  It makes our neighborhoods a place from which people turn.  Now EPA turns its back on our contaminated neighborhoods and holds public involvement meetings miles away from us.  Que triste?

As I said before, I do not view EPA as a just, kind and respected agency.  Citizens living in contaminated neighborhoods should not be ignored by EPA.  They should be considered and involved in any or all stages of EPA's decision making process that affects them.

Suggestions on how EPA can improve collaborative processes:

1. EPA must commit to include citizens, living in neighborhoods, contaminated by our government or by private industry, in all stages of the decision making process.  This means:
*	Providing information and data to the citizens affected
*	Receiving input from the citizens before decisions are made jointly
*	Reporting back the results of the decisions

How EPA can use collaborative processes at the national level:
 
1. By EPA ensuring environmental laws and regulations are implemented equitably.
Note: EPA and TNRCC regulators have known that Kelly AFB contaminated our neighborhoods since the 1980s.  To this date, Kelly has no plan to remove the contaminants from under 18,000 homes.  EPA and TNRCC regulators have looked the other way and never taken Kelly AFB to court to come up with a plan to remove the contaminants from under our homes, schools, streets, and churches.

2. By EPA and other federal agencies providing resources, training and information to citizens living in areas contaminated by our government or by private corporations.

3. By EPA sponsoring a national conference hosted by CPEO that join stakeholders across the U.S. to share info on how to better public involvement and decision making by EPA at contaminated sites being remediated.

4. By EPA demonstrating a top-to-bottom staff commitment to Environmental Justice.

5. By EPA producing results that provide a level playing field for public participation and decision making and ensuring that all people including our South San Antonio community is treated equitably.

6. By EPA reaching out and building upon local neighborhood leadership.  The people living in neighborhoods contaminated by our government know what needs to be done.

7. By EPA extending itself to all members of contaminated neighborhoods and ensuring that low income communities, including Mexican-Americans in South San Antonio who pay their taxes and have served honorably in the US Armed Forces are included.  This does not currently exist.

8. By ensuring EPA's accountability to local citizens, including those in South San Antonio who historically have been subject to social, economic and environmental injustices by our government.

9. By EPA creating a policy that allows citizens to participate as equal partners on decisions affecting the clean up of contaminated sites and their health.

10. By EPA taking the lead and establishing productive working relationships with all citizens, federal agencies and state regulators.

11. By the community and learned scholars assessing independently EPA's annual progress in fulfilling the promise of public participation and decision making.  EPA should not assess their own progress.

As a taxpayer, I am not interested in continuing to participate in EPA's illusion of public involvement and decision making.  I do not want more atole con el dedo nor willing to be a pawn of EPA's public relations.  I want EPA to accomplish its mission of serving the taxpayers, protecting the environment and peoples health by being involved  - "hands on" with the people affected by toxic spills.  No rubber stamping here.

All for Monday.  Will start again later.
Please let me know if I should continue.

Thank you.

Armando C. Quintanilla
70 Bristol Green,  San Antonio, Texas 78209-1899.  
phone: 210-804-2126
fax: 210-826-5763