There are lots of things Deborah could or should be able to find out about from an EPA librarian who has read her story. She mentioned Environmental Justice issues, Title V permits, Sources that will need construction permits, and enforcement problems.
For each of these, there are specific programs that have opportunities for public involvement. But, realistically, for Deborah to know about the opportunities, EPA has to hear what she's saying and respond by translating her concerns into the terms EPA can deal with.
I think there has to be some thinking process at EPA that works backward from the portion of federal law that allows for public participation.
I believe Congress wanted more than to just give us the right to participate in the process; Congress wanted to encourage our involvement. Congress wished to call on the great storehouse of information that the public represents, as well as encourage oversight of agency actions. A neighbor next to a major source of air pollution is going to know a lot of information that a Regional EPA person will never otherwise have access to. In reviewing air permits, I learn things from people who live next door to a facility, and that information often gets included in my comments on the permit and results in tighter conditions.
So, if public involvement is useful and to be encouraged, then EPA needs to figure out what barriers there are and get rid of them. EPA needs to make sure that when a citizen calls and says there a proposed facility in the area, the answer is: here's how you find out what rules apply, here's how you figure out what opportunities there are for you to affect the decision, here's some case studies of how other citizen's handled this kind of problem by working within the system EPA has set up to address these kinds of issues.
My belief is that this would work out better for everyone. Many problems can be substantially reduced if people have access to the system that is meant to correct the problem.
For instance, I've had a situation where emissions were dratically reduced (85%) from a source because I argued to EPA (and they eventually agreed), that the source had been misclassified in a way that allowed it to escape the full rigor of the Clean Air Act. I was luckily able to decypher some of the complexities of New Source Review, but it's not something I would recommend trying at home.
No environmental groups could help me on this. It was too obscure a point of regulatory hairsplitting. None of groups had that kind of expertise, including my own organization.
Suppose, I was not able figure out the argument based on the rules, what would have been my options? I could have organized, contacted the press, said the community was being victimized and the Agency wasn't doing its job. And, then after everyone was completely angry, and substantive issues were completely forgotten, I would have lost. There are no winners in this situation. Far better to give me access to the information that allows me to argue based on the rules, than make me argue with sound bites.
One final thought, a librarian who provides me with the information I am looking for is helping me only in the same sense that someone who gives me a phonebook to look up lumberyards is helping me build a house.
Date
|