[CPEO-BIF] "Where are you, EPA?" - and where it should be

[lsiegel@cpeo.org]

Today I have sent out two, seemingly contradictory messages. U.S. EPA
Assistant Administrator thanked EPA staff for their tireless work in the
wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. On the other hand, Environmental
Science & Technology (ES&T), in reporting data showing that the New
Orleans floodwaters were less toxic than originally believed, asked
"Where are you, EPA?"

It appears to me, from my comfortable vantage point across the
continent, that both are right.

The environmental response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita is
unprecedented. EPA staff and contractors from outside the region have
joined local officials to check on regulated units and hazardous waste
sites, and to sample air, water, and sediment. At this time they are
working systematically, using some of the most sophisticated
characterization technology available. They are generating an enormous
amount of data. As Dunne pointed out, many of these people are carrying
out their work under great personal hardship.

Yet ES&T reports, "experts are charging that EPA is failing to provide
adequate, timely information that can be understood by the public." From
what I've seen, that's probably true. That is, most people on the Gulf
Coast are not in a position to look at the sampling results, even if
they have access to them, and decide important questions, such as:

* Should I return to my home to salvage my belongings? Should I spend
the night?

* Should I let my children play in the yard?

* Should I take a debris-removal job without special equipment and training?

* Do I want to return to my community permanently?

There is no simple answer to these questions. Some areas are safer than others.

EPA and its state counterparts, as well as any local health agencies
that are able to assist, should expand their activities and create a
massive, interactive program of risk communication and community
involvement. That is, known data should be translated into English. The
limits of that data - including uncertainty and data gaps - should be
clearly communicated. If certain people - children, the elderly, people
with pre-existing medical conditions - are more at risk form exposure,
that too should be explained.

Furthermore, people should be given the opportunity to explain what they
need to know to make important personal decisions. And the results of
that interaction should be widely disseminated.

It will take more than posting signs on telephone poles or placing ads
in neighborhood newspapers. It will mean coordinating with environmental
activists, churches, schools, and media throughout the region. The
Internet should be utilized, but every effort should be made to reach
people who do not have Internet access or who rely on other types of information.

As I have been writing for weeks, those charged with post-hurricane
environmental responsibilities should apply the lessons of Brownfields,
Superfund, and other existing programs. Public uncertainty about
environmental exposures is nothing new, and the agencies have numerous
successful models for helping resolve those concerns. As experience
elsewhere has shown, environmental officials may need to work hard to
establish trust with community members who have good cause to resent
"the government," but if they listen to the public they can be successful.

Now that the sampling effort is moving full speed ahead, public outreach
should climb on board.

Lenny Siegel
-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org
_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields