REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE OR POST A NEW MESSAGE   

  Date  |   Subject  |   Thread

Hearing Ruses

  • Archived: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:13:00 -0400 (EDT)
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 11:38:16 -0400 (EDT)
  • From: Glenn Landers <glanders@stratos.net>
  • Subject: Hearing Ruses
  • X-topic: Permits and Rules

I often attend public hearings on federally enforceable permits that are issued by the State of Ohio under a delegated authority. There are several things Ohio does that I think deflects public input in a rather insidious way.

1. Ohio, for instance, usually begins a hearing with an "information session", where citizens can ask questions. Unfortunately, many citizens use this time to voice compliants which are not recorded and do not become part of the record. The more formal part of the hearing, which involves coming up to a microphone and speaking, often intimidates citizens who complained earlier.

Sometimes I write down issues as they come up, to ensure that they are introduced to the record. The Ohio EPA, however, if their interest is in identifying useful information, should do the same. They could also provide a table and chair for people to testify at, as this is probably less intimidating to citizens than standing in front of a crowd.

2. Ohio EPA often closes a comment period the day after a hearing. Citizens, knowing that there will be an information session at the hearing, come to hear about a permit, but have no time to digest the information and develop comments. The offer to hear about something as complex as a coal fired power plant and then immediately after submit comments does not seem to me an effort designed to involve the public. It's only lip service.

3. For Title V permits, Ohio EPA takes so long to move on them after the hearing that you can't help but suspect the agency is waiting for citizens who might appeal the permit to lose interest or move out of state. It also seems possible the state has in the past been waiting for a new Administration in Washington, one that would be friendlier to state discretion, or lack of. Whatever the reason, the languishing of operating permits, sometimes for years, undermines public participation.

I'm sure others can come up with their own examples of how hearings can be used to give the impression of public involvement, without the substance.


  Date  |   Subject  |   Thread

Welcome | About this Event | Briefing Book | Join the Dialogue | Formal Comment | Search

This EPA Dialogue is managed by Information Renaissance. Messages from participants are posted on this non-EPA web site. Views expressed in this dialogue do not represent official EPA policies.