EPA CR

[Karen Stromberg <Karen.Stromberg@state.ma.us>]

It's been my experience dealing with EPA staff in my region (I'm going to get in big trouble now), that public participation is still treated as a "dog and pony show" (their term, not mine).  They don't seem to really feel that public involvement is a legitimate part of their job or has any value.  It's just a pain in the neck job that has to get done because headquarters mandates it.  That attitude is a cultural one set by the agency that needs to shift from higher up, and be passed on to the older project managers.

I also find EPA's current CR very rigid and legalistic.  Every site gets it, whether they want it or not.  Public hearings are held instead of more informal public meetings.  People have to comment on the record, come up to the microphone, state their name, etc.  Public comments are answered by lawyers!  It's one of my jobs to review the responses we give to public comments as a non-technical person with an eye to the layman in how we answer every one, and if we really did.  Lawyers have no role at all.  We have a flexible process for people to request involvement, and then what kind they want.  I also am respected as a valuable team member who has valuable expertise to lend (versus taking care of the drudge work like meeting logistics).  I don't see that respect for CR staff at EPA.  The project manager and I share the responsibility for how public involvement is going - we're a team, before and after public meetings.  We also require the regulated community and their consultants to participate (implement) the process and don't insert ourselves in the middle if it's not necessary.

We also don't have the standard of making everybody happy equaling a good meeting.  I feel my job is to make sure people heard and understood the information presented, have an opportunity to have input and their input is responded to in a way they understand.  They don't have to agree or like it all the time, but the process has to be viewed as legitimate.