RE: EPA's evolving role - communication is a two-way street.

[Joe Gardner <jgardnerjr@juno.com>]

Dear Briana, Panelists and Dialogue participants,

What a welcome opportunity this is to relate our experience as a participant in EPA Region 2's reassessment and remediation plan process for the 200 mile Hudson River Superfund site, the largest in the nation.  Over the past several years we participated in the public hearing and information sessions as Conservation Chair of the local chapter of the Appalachian Mountain Club, as a member of the Hudson River PCB Coalition, and as a member of a community involvement committee under EPA's CAG.  The items we wish to stress are:

I.  The quality of Region 2's PIP.

II. Refute anti-dredging group opinion of EPA' PIP.

III.Constructive suggestions for improving the PIP.

I.  EPA Region 2 conducted a highly professional public involvement process, in every respect, on the reassessment and plan process for the Hudson River Superfund site.  The professional staff and Ann Rychlenski, Community Relations Coordinator, did a superb job in conducting the meetings.

II. We would be remiss if we did not refute the false and misleading effort by dredging opponents GE and local vociferous groups to discredit EPA's PIP.  GE, alone, is attributed to have spent $60 million on media messages to this effect.  GE is going to court to destroy the Superfund legislation of 20 years standing.  A similar effort might be made to revoke GE's New York charter of incorporation.

III.Lastly, we constructively suggest that EPA's public venues could be expanded to include minority and poorer neighborhoods to broaden outreach to various segments of the population.  In addition to hotels and schools, Churches, Legion and VFW halls, and local government auditoria, such as was the case in Troy, are such opportuities.

Thank you for the opportunity to relate our experience on these issues.  EPA has an excellent public involvement policy and it can only be made better by this Dialogue.     

Joe Gardner