RE: Improve input to permitting

[Verena Owen <Baumling@aol.com>]

I like Mr. Atherton's idea of giving the public a clear guideline of where in a permit process they are and what options/ resources are available to them.

I do not believe all his suggestions will ever be available and if I had to pick some off this wish list I think the most important points are as follows:

1.There needs to be some kind of information flow that an application has been received and is under review, either as a notice or in monthly newsletters on the web would give the citizens and community leaders a head start. Often the draft permit is the first thing the public sees of a project.

2.Technical assistance is critical to ensure meaningful participation. It should be offered as early as possible. Many efforts of the public to have input fails because they cannot afford to hire experts.

3.Public hearings are designed too restrictively to address the concerns the public might have with a project. In our cases, we were not allowed to ask questions about water or noise at air hearings. If a controversial project comes up, why not send staff from other bureaus to attend the hearing that can address non-air related issues?

4.Public meetings are only useful if there is some record of the proceedings kept or there is some way to let all the participants know what questions were asked and what answers are given. Many "informational" meetings, not hosted by my permitting agency, employ the "divide and conquer" method of having small stations set up to discuss individual's concerns  on a one-on-one basis without letting everybody see the big picture. A waste of time.

5. Have a firm comment period. The cause of many frustrations by are the seemingly arbitrary lengthenings and shortenings of comment periods by the hearing officer after the public hearing. Pleas for lengthening were not answered, despite of many phone calls begging for a decision, any decision, periods were shortened without letting the public know, in one case the new deadline was posted on the agency's website at 4pm of the day it closed. 30 days seems adequate to me, especially if there was early public involvement.  

6. In Illinois at least, there has to be a response to public comments. This responsiveness summary is understood to be a companion document to the final permit, explaining the decisions of the agency. However, the questions asked by the public are rephrased and often dumbed down, there is no appeals process in place if certain issued that were raised by the public were not answered in the RS or reflected in the final permit. There is often a considerable time lag between the final permit and the summary,( the record is so far 5 months and counting, no way to force the agency to write it apparently).

7. As to legal assistance, I am not holding my breath. I have appealed a permit to the EAB, had to hire my own lawyer, I did not ask for legal assistance, all I asked was to let the EAB review the permit without interference from the agency. The company did not bother to hire a lawyer, the IEPA's lawyers defended its permit decision.