ENGINEER ROLES IN PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION PROCESS
By Bruce M. Thomson, 1 Timothy J. D e Young, 2
and Constance J. Meadowcroft 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Engineers often are key participants in required public participation

processes. A case in point is the preparation of an Environmental Impact State-
ment which usually involves engineers as representatives of governmental
agencies or as professional consultants. A less common but equally important
role for the engineer is as a member of an advisory committee or as a voluntary
participant in public hearings. A case study of a recently completed EIS process
involving the expansion of Albuquerque, New Mexico's wastewater collection
and treatment facilities suggests a number of ways that engineers in each of
these roles might improve their effectiveness. Increased voluntary participation
by citizen engineers is recommended as an effective means to improve the pub-
lic participation process as well as to enhance the reputation of the engineering
profession.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, much legislation has been passed at all levels of gov-
ernment that requires formal mechanisms for public participation in public
policy decisions having significant social and environmental impacts.
Citizen participation now plays an important role in the development
and realization of large, complex projects. One of the most visible public
participation programs is the Federal Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) process established by the National Environmental Protection Act
of 1970 (NEPA). An active and thorough public participation program
is a major facet of NEPA. Formal public hearings, opportunities for writ-
ten comments on draft EIS reports, and in some cases the formulation
of a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) are key requirements of the EIS
process.
In virtually every instance, an EIS involves complex and controversial
issues. Since many of the issues include significant technical aspects,
technically competent individuals, especially engineers, are often key
participants. Unfortunately, the public participation process can be quite
frustrating to many engineers. Seemingly endless public meetings may
try the patience of a project engineer trying to complete a project in a
timely and efficient manner. Domination of hearings by single-interest
constituencies may also discourage participation by outside engineers.
However, barring a dramatic change in public sentiment, public partic-
ipation will continue to play a crucial role in the EIS process. Engineers
'Asst.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M.
Asst. Prof, of Public Administration, Div. of Public Administration, Univ. of
New
3
Mexico, Albuquerque, N.M.
Grad. Student, Div. of Public Administration, Univ. of New Mexico, Albu-
querque, N.M.
Note.Discussion open until December 1, 1983. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Technical
and Professional Publications. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for
review and possible publication on October 8, 1982. This paper is part of the
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 3, July, 1983. ASCE,
ISSN 0733-9380/83/0003-0214/$01.00. Paper No. 18086.
214

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.

 therefore must learn to interact constructively and effectively with the
divergent interests likely to be involved.
In the context of describing an EIS process recently conducted in Al-
buquerque, New Mexico, this paper explores the roles which the engi-
neer may assume in the public participation process. Various roles are
identified and a number of observations and suggestions are presented
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

to improve the effectiveness of engineers.

Project Description.The City of Albuquerque, like many cities of the
Southwest, has experienced considerable growth in recent years. To ac-
comodate such growth, a major planning effort directed at wastewater
collection and treatment facilities was undertaken by the City in 1975.
A facilities plan was completed which proposed the upgrading and ex-
panding of the existing system in order to handle growth through the
year 2000. Since federal funding for the project was available, an EIS
was prepared and published in 1977. As approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the plan called for disposal of sludge gener-
ated in the treatment process by application on city-owned parks, con-
tinuing a practice of almost 20 years. Subsequent to the publication of
this EIS, however, new federal regulations were promulgated which re-
quired that a Process to Significantly Reduce Pathogens must be imple-
mented prior to application of sludge on public access areas (40 CFR
257.3-6). In other words, a method of disinfection was mandated to con-
trol pathogenic organisms.
In December of 1980, the City prepared an amendment to the facilities
plan to address the new disinfection requirements. This amendment,
the Phase II Expansion Program Engineering Report, called for the dis-
infection of dried sludge using gamma irradiation of Cesium-137, a by-
product of government nuclear programs. (This report is known locally
as the Balloon Report due to the striking cover photograph of one of
Albuquerque's famous hot air balloons.) In the Balloon Report, the City
proposed that the sludge be piped five miles from the treatment facility
to vacant city-owned land. The sludge then would be dried to 40% solids
content and loaded onto a conveyor bucket assembly which would pass
it by the sealed Cs-137 source plaques. Current design criteria estab-
lished under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) call
for a radiation dose of one mega-rad.
Albuquerque would appear to be an ideal candidate to become the
first municipality in the United States to irradiate its sludge with Cs-137
since much of the technology for this process was developed by nearby
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). In fact, SNL has successfully op-
erated an eight ton per day pilot plant in Albuquerque for over four
years. In comparison, the proposed facility will eventually handle 30 tons
of dry sludge per day.
The changes in the sludge management portion of the City's proposal
were deemed by EPA to be sufficiently significant to warrant a Supple-
mental EIS. A full-scale public participation program became a necessary
component of the Supplemental EIS, in part due to the controversial
nature of the City's sludgeirradiation proposal. A flow chart illustrating
the major steps in the planning process is presented in Fig. 1.
Public Participation Program.Coordinated by the Water Resources
Department of the City of Albuquerque, the public participation pro-
215

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.

 Facilities Plan
1975-1976

Publication of EIS
1977
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

New Regulations on
Land Application of Sludge
4 0 CFR 257. 3 - 6
1979

Balloon Report
1980

Supplemental Draft EIS Public Participation Program

1981 1980- 1981

Final Public Hearing

Nov. 1981

Final EIS Record

, of Decision
1982

FIG. 1.Major Steps in Planning Sludge Treatment and Disposal System

gram consisted of a joint effort among Federal, State and local levels of
government. In order to educate the public and receive their input, both
formal public meetings and less formal Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
meetings were held spanning a period of over one year. Table 1 provides
a summary of the public participation meeting schedule.
As a primary forum for public input, the CAC was a major element
of the public participation effort. The committee was organized in De-
cember of 1980 to study the feasible options of sludge treatment and

TABLE 1.Summary of Public Participation Program Meeting Schedule

Meeting(s) Date Subject
d) (2) (3)
Scoping Meeting 10/7/80 Public Discussion of what issues should
be addressed by supplemental EIS.
Public Meeting 7/8/81 Discussion of sludge treatment and dis-
posal alternatives available to City of
Albuquerquemajor emphasis on ex-
planation of irradiation using Cs-137.
21 Citizen Advisory Com- 12/18/80 Study sludge treatment and disposal
mittee Meetings to options and develop recommenda-
12/9/81 tions for preferred alternatives.
Public Hearing 11/18/81 Formal public input and comment on
Draft Supplemental E.I.S.

216

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.

 disposal available to the City and to recommend a preferred alternative.
As required in the public participation regulations (40 CFR 25.7), the
CAC members were selected by the city to represent four distinct groups
including public officials (elected and appointed), public interest orga-
nizations (health, environmental, social, etc.), economic interests (neigh-
boring land owners, business representatives, etc.) and private citizens.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

It is worth noting that four members of the committee were engineers.

The CAC was fairly autonomous in that they called and conducted their
own meetings, had use of Water Resource Department staff, and were
able to obtain the services of a number of outside technical advisors in
order to clarify critical issues. Being ad hoc in nature, the committee
disbanded after providing recommendations to the City and EPA.
Throughout the public participation process, the City's irradiation pro-
posal generated intense controversy. Some members of the CAC as well
as the public linked the irradiation technology to nuclear power. Anti-
nuclear advocates strongly opposed irradiation citing threats to environ-
mental safety and health, legitimization of the nuclear energy cycle by
the productive use of waste materials, and the substantial costs associ-
ated with the capital-intensive irradiation facilities in contrast to more
labor-intensive options such as composting. In response, irradiation ad-
vocates including the City's project engineer, representatives from San-
dia Labs, and many members of the CACargued that irradiation was
actually safer and more cost-effective than any other alternative. Not
surprisingly, public meetings were typically long and heated, few in-
stances of genuine compromise occurred, and many participants ex-
pressed dissatisfaction with the performance of others or with the entire
public participation process. The final recommendations of the CAC re-
flect the polarization of the participants; a majority report recommend-
ing irradiation was accompanied by a minority report in opposition to
the irradiation technology. Moreover, the irradiation debate was so per-
vasive throughout the participation process that other components of
the City's proposal were neglected. For example, the CAC was unable
to fully consider the relative costs of sludge transportation alternatives.
The case indicates the clear need for accurate information in the public
participation process. Decision makers and advisory groups should re-
ceive an informed, comprehensive picture of the actual advantages and
disadvantages of the various program options. Unfortunately, inaccurate
and biased information was often the rule rather than the exception in
this case. One source of misinformation came from individuals who did
not understand the technical aspects of the irradiation process. In many
cases their ignorance developed into feelings of mistrust and antago-
nism. A second source of misinformation came from individuals whose
adherence to a narrow, single interest perspective prevented full con-
sideration of other alternatives. Domination of the public meetings by
anti-nuclear activists; for example, contributed to the failure to fully con-
sider economic dimensions of the various options. An obvious but im-
porant solution to the problem of misinformation is the increased par-
ticipation by informed, relatively objective individuals.
Role of the Engineer in the Public Participation Process.Through-
out the public participation process there was extensive involvement by
members of the technical community including physicists, biologists, en-
217

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.

 vironmentalists, and engineers. Virtually all of the sludge management
options had technical components requiring presentation to, and un-
derstanding by, the CAC. The roles of the engineers involved in the
public participation process are of three basic types as summarized in
Table 2. The three categories are not meant to be mutually exclusive and
it is possible for an individual engineer to assume more than one role
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

even though in the present examples there were no instances of an in-

dividual performing all three roles.
The "bureaucratic engineer" represents an agency of government and
may be a full time staff member or a consultant under contract to the
government agencies involved. Examples from the present study in-
clude staff members of the Water Resources Department, members of
the firm which prepared the Balloon Report, and members of the firm
which contracted with EPA to prepare the EIS. The bureaucratic engi-
neer must effectively explain the problems and available options to the
public, and, most likely, make presentations at a number of different
forums. In addition these engineers may be an important source of in-
formation for the CAC. Consequently, they must have both a thorough
knowledge of the technical components of the proposal and the ability
to present this information to the public and political decision makers.
The credibility of the bureaucratic engineer is enhanced to the extent

TABLE 2.-Summary of Roles of Engineer in Public Participation Programs

Role Description Suggestions for
(1) (2) improving effectiveness
(3)
Bureaucratic a. Public employee with pro- 1. Demonstrate impartiality
Engineer gram responsibility. to project alternatives.
b. Outside engineer employed 2. Demonstrate willingness
by agency having major to work with public.
role in project. 3. Develop credibility by
being objective.
Consultant a. Engineer invited to provide 1. Overcome "hired gun"
Engineer technical information to citi- stereotyping by showing
zen group. concern.
2. Demonstrate independ-
ence from contractor by
considering all
alternatives.
3. Explain technical issues
simply to an often unin-
formed & emotional
public.
4. Develop credibility by
being objective.
Citizen a. Member of Citizen's Advi- 1. Be willing to be critical of
Engineer sory Group. other engineering work.
b. Individual presenting Testi- 2. Help explain technical
mony at public meeting. matters to public.
3. Demand objectivity by all
professional participants.

218

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.

 that he is perceived by the public to be both technically competent and
uncommitted to a specific alternative. This is especially true when al-
ternatives are controversial as is the use of irradiation. Though he may
have done an extensive analysis of available options and reached a tech-
nically sound conclusion, any apparent lack of objectivity will quickly
result in charges of bias by opponents of the plan or may seriously di-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

vide the uncommitted public. All presentations should be thoroughly

documented, and when dealing with a relatively small group of the pub-
lic such as the CAC, copies of technical information should be made
available. Moreover, the bureaucratic engineer should provide full and
equal consideration of all alternatives. In our case, the CAC generally
respected and listened to those bureaucratic engineers who demon-
strated both impartiality and competence.
The ''engineering consultant" has the role of providing expert testi-
mony on a limited aspect of the total proposal. In contrast to the bu-
reaucratic engineer who often is intimately involved with the entire pro-
gram, the consultant is called in to satisfy specific needs of the public
participation program. In the present case consultants were utilized to
evaluate the safety of the proposed irradiator design, to complete the
efficiency of sludge disinfection by irradiation and other processes, and
to discuss alternatives to irradiation. In other programs this role might
also include experts retained by special interest groups. In a more lim-
ited public participation program consisting of only a few public hear-
ings it is likely that input from engineering consultants would not be
available to the general public.
Though the engineering consultant must also establish a high degree
of professional credibility with the public, under some circumstances he
may take an advocacy role not allowed the bureaucratic engineer. This
will depend on the type of information that is to be conveyed. In the
present case, an equipment vendor was given the opportunity to present
information on a competing disinfection process. The CAC expected (and
received) a glowing "sales pitch." In another instance, a nuclear engi-
neer was requested to compare the relative merits of gamma and elec-
tron beam irradiation. He therefore was expected by the CAC to be com-
pletely impartial to either alternative. If the consultant is requested to
make an impartial evaluation he must demonstrate as much indepen-
dence from the process as possible.
As noted previously, the CAC members contained a broad spectrum
of technical competence. Consulting engineers therefore must be pre-
pared to address the issues at virtually all levels of technical complexity.
Although the consultant's presentation should be oriented to the general
public, tough, penetrating questions are to be expected. A large amount
of misinformation on the subject may exist and many issues will quickly
become highly emotional. In the present case, for example, agricultural
investigations had been conducted on the effects of feeding irradiated
sludge to farm animals. Consequently, a number of irate citizens made
statements at the public hearings objecting to a purported plan to recycle
the city's human wastes (though somewhat more graphic terms were
generally used) to poorer segments of the community in the form of
meat products.
One obstacle that the engineering consultant must overcome is the
219

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.

 perception of the consultant as a "hired gun;" one who is brought to
the debate at an outrageous fee to make a brief and disinterested con-
tribution to the process, and then leaves town never to be heard from
again. A respected local engineer is likely to have more credibility with
the public than an out-of-state professional, even one of national
reputation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The third role that the engineer may play in the public participation
process is that of the "citizen engineer." This person has little or no for-
mal involvement in the EIS process as a consultant or bureaucrat, and
becomes active through personal or professional interests or both. In the
present case there were two subcategories, the CAC member engineer
and those engineers who presented testimony at the public hearing.
As noted previously, the current public participation guidelines call
for equal representation between four interest groups: public interests,
private citizens, public officials, and economic interests. The CAC for
this program had at least one engineer from each group except the first.
The CAC member engineer has perhaps a greater opportunity to influ-
ence the EIS process than anyone else except the bureaucratic engineer
in charge of the proposed program. As a member of the CAC, these
engineers will be involved with the process from start to finish. By virtue
of their technical background, they should be able to quickly develop a
thorough understanding of the major issues. Working with the other
members of the CAC over the duration of the project should provide
numerous opportunities to identify points of contention, to public sen-
timent, and to respond in an effective and credible manner.
There are several specific actions the CAC member engineer can take
to increase his effectiveness in the process. The most important is to
maintain an open attitude towards all options. As previously stated, the
perceived bias on the part of "experts" may quickly polarize members
of the public and reduce meaningful communication. The CAC member
engineer should not be reluctant to put other engineers on the spot.
There is a natural reticence to be critical of ones colleagues in a public
forum. However, the committee needs penetrating questions to deter-
mine the veracity of various presentations. If possible, the CAC member
engineer should be willing to perform independent analyses of ques-
tionable material. In the present case, the ability to quickly analyze, sub-
stantiate or refute various findings greatly enhanced the effectiveness of
at least one CAC engineer. His efforts were well received and appreci-
ated by the rest of the committee. The result was that his opinions were
respected and carefully considered when final recommendations were
discussed.
In contrast to the CAC member engineer, the engineer who volunteers
personal opinions at hearings or public meetings probably has the least
amount of influence in the public participation process. In most in-
stances little time is made available for public testimony. Thus, the en-
gineer's credentials cannot be established; it is difficult to elaborate on
many points, and there is little opportunity to review the technical as-
pects of the plan. In addition, testimony by the non-affiliated engineer
is likely to be diluted by the testimony of others, much of which may
be misinformed. These observations are not meant to discourage partic-
ipation at this level but rather to point out some of the constraints which
220

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.

 should be recognized when preparing ones testimony. Since many peo-
ple have neither the time nor the interest to become more active in most
public participation programs, this option may represent the best op-
portunity to voice ones opinions. More importantly, the informed opin-
ion of the engineer as non-affiliated expert is needed in many public
hearings.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Several suggestions can be made which may improve the reception

that testimony provided by a "citizen engineer" receives:

1. First and foremost, avoid issues which present a conflict of interest.

If the engineer represents a firm or process which is reviewed unfavor-
ably in preparing the EIS, do not publicly criticize the EIS under the
guise of involvement as an interested citizen. Someone will quickly and,
most likely, devastatingly point out your affiliation which may seriously
affect your local reputation for professionalism.
2. Do not hesitate to raise obvious questions about items concerning
you. In most public participation programs there is a tremendous amount
of misunderstanding by the public. Questions read into the record at a
public hearing generally must be addressed by staff before the final rec-
ord of decision is made. Presumably the decision makers will review all
public testimony and may ask themselves the same questions.
3. Submit written as well as oral testimony to be certain the points
you wish to communicate are accurately conveyed.

There are many reasons why engineers should become active as citi-
zens in various public participation programs. Engineering training and
practice is based on objectivity. Consequently, engineers should be less
susceptible to persuasion by specious arguments. Moreover, engineers
tend to be more appreciative of the limits of engineering analysis, es-
pecially benefit/cost comparisons. While many engineers are reluctant
to express opinions of matters outside of their particular area of exper-
tise, public participation issues often are not very complicated. Theo-
retically, then, engineers could employ their professional training and
expertise to correct misperceptions and incorrect information often as-
sociated with the public participation process.
Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons why the influence of
engineers is not greater. Traditionally, engineers have restricted their
involvement to professional, rather than public roles. Engineers are often
quite visible as employees of public agencies, as consultants, or as rep-
resentatives of private companies who have an economic interest in the
proposed project. In many cases, the engineer's influence on the public
participation process may be inhibited by professional affiliation. Bu-
reaucratic engineers, for example, may be viewed as "organization men,"
i.e., individuals more concerned with corporate or bureaucratic objec-
tives than with the public interest. Consulting engineers, as discussed,
may be viewed as "hired guns" willing to sell their expertise to the high-
est bidder. The public credibility of these engineers may therefore be
inhibited by stereo types associated with their professional affiliations.
Since the majority of engineers involved in public participation usually
have some such identification, problems associated with public percep-
tions may result. Less obviously, non-affiliated engineers may be reluc-

221

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.

 tant to participate in public meetings because of potential conflicts of
interests. Finally, many non-affiliated engineers choose not to partici-
pate simply out of apathy; the "silent majority" philosophy. It is un-
fortunate that unless more engineers become involved as citizens in pub-
lic forums, mistrust and misperceptions about technical projects in
particular, and about the engineering profession in general, are likely to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 05/12/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

increase.
Willingness to devote a considerable amount of time without financial
remuneration is of course the key obstacle to all volunteer work. The
benefits to the individual engineer and to the public of an active, civic-
minded engineering community are quite significant. The ability to par-
ticipate is not limited by lack of technical expertise. Objectivity, interest
in the community, and openness are the principal attributes needed.

222

J. Prof. Issues in Engrg. 1983.109:214-222.