Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

As of December, 1995, the DOE EnvironmentalManagement program (EM) has established eleven site-specific advisory boards at the Hanford, Idaho, Nevada,Monticello, Fernald, Los Alamos, Sandia, SavannahRiver, Pantex, Oak Ridge, and Rocky Flats sites. Theseboards were established by DOE in close cooperationwith state environmental agencies and regional EPAoffices.The site-specific advisory boards (SSABs) wereestablished to provide site specific advice. The boardchairs, however, do meet several times a year on an "adhoc" basis to discuss site-related and national issuesand concerns.EM also established a national EM advisory board(EMAB). This board provides broad national advice thatcomplements the advice from our SSABs. Greaterinteraction between the SSABs and the EMAB isanticipated in the future.In addition, the State and Tribal Government WorkingGroup (STGWG), established in 1989, gives affectedstates and Indian nations a voice in the DOE decision-making process. For more information, contact DonBeck, Office of Public Accountability, DOE, (202) 586-7633.

Box 10: Department of Energy

CHAPTER 4

ADVISORY BOARDS

Introduction

_____________________________________________________________________________As more information has become available to public stakeholders through communityinvolvement programs as described in Chapter 3, some stakeholders have requested a greaterrole in the decisions that affect the health and environment of their communities. In itsInterim Report, the Committee recommended that facilities establish advisory boards to meetthis need. Since the publication of the Interim Report, the Committee estimates that over 200advisory boards addressing federal facility cleanup have been established either at theinitiative of the regulated or regulating agencies, or the request of public stakeholders. Forexample, DOE has established 11 site-specific advisory boards (SSABs) and DOD hasestablished over 200 Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs). This overwhelming response tothe Committee's recommendations has initiated a new way to approach community andfederal agency partnerships at these facilities.In this chapter, the Committee restates itsrecommendations for the establishment andoperation of advisory boards. It alsoincludes new recommendations that haveemerged through the collective experienceof the first two years of implementing theCommittee's original recommendations.

Interim Report Recommendations

_____________________________________In the 1993 Interim Report, the Committeerecommended that federal agencies establishadvisory boards to provide independentpolicy and technical advice to the regulatedand regulating agencies with respect to keycleanup decisions. The Interim Reportproposed a model approach forimplementing the boards and includedrecommendations for when boards shouldbe established and how they should be formed, operated, and financed.

DOD is establishing Restoration Advisory Boards(RABs) at all closing installations and at operatinginstallations where there is sufficient, sustained intereston the part of the community. RABs are generallyconsistent with the concepts found in the Interim Report.Policy and implementing guidelines on RABs werepublished in 1994, and each of the Services haspromulgated guidance. (See Appendix D)As of January, 1996, approximately 200 RABS havebeen established. RABs bring together people whoreflect the diverse interests within the local community,enabling the early and continued flow of informationamong the affected community, the DOD installation andthe regulatory agencies. The RAB complements othercommunity involvement efforts, but does not replacethem. DOD's policy is that community members of RABsshould reflect the diverse interests within the localcommunity and should live or work in the affectedcommunity or be impacted by the restoration program.The member selection process is designed to beunbiased and open, and is conducted in cooperationwith regulatory agencies and the community. Once theRAB has been formed, the installation selects a DOD co-chair and the community members select a communityco-chair. The co-chairs serve as equal partners andestablish meeting agendas. Both co-chairs areresponsible for ensuring members have the opportunityto raise issues and concerns and that theirrepresentatives participate in an open and constructivemanner.Installations are charged with providing administrativesupport to the RABs such as meeting facilities,preparation of minutes, copying/printing of documents,mailings, public notices, outreach material and meetingfacilitation. Citizen groups can apply for TechnicalAssistance Grants through the EPA. In addition, theNational Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995provided new authority for DOD to provide up to $7.5million in technical assistance funding to members ofRABs. DOD is in the process of identifying options forproviding this assistance. For more information, contactMarcia Read, Environmental Security, DOD, (703) 697-9793.

Box 11: Department of Defense

A brief description of how agencies areimplementing the boards can be found inBoxes 10-14. In institutionalizing theboards, most of the agencies have issuedguidance documents for how these boardsshould be established and run. To obtaincopies of these guidance documents refer toAppendix D which includes points of contacts for each agency.The Committee applauds the massive effortundertaken by the regulated agencies toimplement the advisory boardrecommendations. At the vast majority of facilities, community participants appreciatethe opportunity to take part in the cleanupdecision-making process. Similarly, agencyofficials are realizing the merits of stakeholder participation. Although it is toosoon to evaluate the overall effect of theadvisory boards in the cleanup process, itappears that the successful formation of advisory boards is fostering or supporting amore cooperative approach amongregulators, regulated agencies, andcommunities.

Continuing Problems

_____________________________________In implementing any major new conceptsuch as establishing advisory boards athundreds of facilities of several differentagencies, challenging issues will arise. In implementing the Interim Report recommendationsfor advisory boards, agencies and public stakeholders have learned many lessons aboutestablishing and operating advisory boards. Below is a list of concerns that the Committeehas identified, as problems that have either continued despite the establishment of advisoryboards, or arisen through implementation:

Carrying out both its oversight and technical assistanceresponsibilities, EPA participates on advisory boardsestablished by other federal agencies. EPA has workedwith DOD and DOE to develop policy and guidance onthe creation and functioning of advisory boards at theirfacilities. In addition, EPA has piloted advisory boards at10 non-federal facility NPL sites. Through its TechnicalAssistance Grant (TAG) program, EPA provides funds tocommunity groups to provide more effective communityinvolvement. As of November 1995, TAGs have beenawarded at 29 federal facilities. For more information,contact Sven-Erik Kaiser, OSWER/FFRO, EPA (202)260-1606.

Box 12: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Community Assistance Panels (CAPS) - ATSDR hasestablished CAPS operating at Otis Air Force Base(Massachusetts), the McClellan Air Force Base site(California), and the Cornhusker Army Ammunition PlantSite (Nebraska). These panels inform the public aboutsite-specific scientific findings and provide a means forcommunity participation in ATSDR activities. It isATSDR policy to either convene a CAP meeting orprovide a written update to the community on itsactivities at 90-day intervals. For more information,contact Mark Bashor, ATSDR (404) 639-0730.

Box 13: ATSDR

•Mistrust among some stakeholderspersists at some facilities.•Orientation to the advisory boardprocess can be frustrating and timeconsuming.•The amount of technical informationnecessary to understand cleanupoptions and their implications can beoverwhelming.•There is, in many cases, a lack of sufficient representation from affected communitiesof color. The membership serving on advisory boards does not always reflect thediversity of communities in which the facilities are located.•There is a lack of clarity regarding local governments' role in the advisory boardprocess.•Advisory boards are often considered the sole focus for agency outreach efforts toaffected and surroundingcommunities.•There is a lack of clarity with respectto the advisory board's role andexpected interaction with otheradvisory groups addressing relatedissues such as reuse.•There needs to be a process by whichadvisory boards can be evaluated.•To date, some agencies have madelittle effort to share informationamong advisory boards. The wealth of information that has been gained at some siteswith effective boards has not been readily shared with sites establishing new boards.•Lack of clarity about who and what bodies the advisory board should advise.

Recommendations

______________________________________________________________________________

of 00

Environmental Protection Agency: ferdcrpt chap4

Download or Print

233 Reads

Info and Rating

Category:	Uncategorized.
Rating:
Upload Date:	01/26/2008
Copyright:	Attribution Non-commercial
Tags:	Government environment us usa green conservation unitedstates executive epa (more tags) Government environment us usa green conservation unitedstates executive epa environmentalprotectionagency environmentalprotection (fewer)