EPA/540/R-96/013
Final Report Of
The Federal Facilities
Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee
Consensus Principles
And Recommendations
For Improving
Federal Facilities Cleanup
April 1996
. Recycled/Recyclable
r/T \j Printed on papenhat contains
X_lC/ at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee is an advisory
committee federally chartered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Participants also include individuals from: the United States Departments of Agriculture,
Defense (and its Military Services), Energy, and the Interior, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;
state, tribal, and local governments; and numerous other nationally, regionally and locally
based environmental, community, environmental justice, and labor organizations. The
members of the Committee participate as individuals, not as official representatives of their
agencies and organizations.
The recommendations in this report reflect a consensus of the individuals serving on the
Committee. The recommendations are aimed at improving the process of making decisions
and setting priorities for cleanup efforts at federal facilities. The Committee recognizes that
each facility, community and agency has different circumstances they are addressing, and has
designed the recommendations to be flexible to address different situations. The Committee
hopes the implementation of the recommendations contained in its Final Report will be done
with a philosophy of inclusiveness, openness, and accountability. While this executive
summary attempts to be as comprehensive as possible, the Committee strongly urges readers
to obtain a copy of the Final Report in its entirety.
For copies of the Final Report, please contact:
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office or The Keystone Center
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science and Public Policy Program
401 M Street, S.W. (5101) P.O. Box 8606
Washington, DC 20460 Keystone, CO 80435
(202) 260-9924 (970) 468-5822
fax (202) 260-5646 fax (970) 262-0152
e-mail: tkcspp@keystone.org
The Committee's Final Report is also available electronically on the Internet conference
"tkc-ffer-forum@keystone.org."
-------
FINAL REPORT
of the
FEDERAL FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
DIALOGUE COMMITTEE
CONSENSUS
PRINCIPLES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR IMPROVING
FEDERAL FACILITIES CLEANUP
April 1996
-------
ACRONYMS
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended
DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of the Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
DSMOA Defense State Memorandum of Agreement
EM DOE Office of Environmental Management
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ER DOE Office of Environmental Restoration
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
FFCA Federal Facility Compliance Act
FFER Federal Facility Environmental Restoration
FFPG Federal Facilities Policy Group
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
GAO General Accounting Office
IAG Interagency Agreement
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NEJAC National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
NCP National Contingency Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RAB Restoration Advisory Board
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
REO Regional Environmental Officers
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SSAB Site-Specific Advisory Board
SVTC Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
TCE Trichloroethylene
TKC The Keystone Center
TRC DOD Technical Review Committee
UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Act
USD A U.S. Department of Agriculture
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
Introduction vii
Chapter 2: Principles for Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities x
Chapter 3: Community Involvement xiii
Chapter 4: Advisory Boards xiv
Chapter 5: Funding and Priority Setting xvi
Chapter 6: Capacity Building xx
Conclusion xxi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
The Nature of the Problem 1
The History and Goal of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee 4
The Nature of the Committee's Consensus 5
Overview of the Report 5
CHAPTER 2: PRINCIPLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP OF FEDERAL
FACILITIES 9
Introduction 9
The Principles 9
Conclusion 34
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 37
Introduction 37
Interim Report Recommendations 37
Continuing Problems 39
Recommendations 41
I. Fundamentals of Community Involvement 41
II. Assess Current Community Needs 42
III. Identify Public Stakeholders 42
IV. Use Appropriate Methods to Provide Information to Public
Stakeholders 43
V. Communicate Economic Opportunities 43
VI. Future Use Planning and Institutional Controls 44
Conclusion 45
in
-------
CHAPTER 4: ADVISORY BOARDS 47
Introduction 47
Interim Report Recommendations 47
Continuing Problems 48
Recommendations 49
I. Overview and Scope 50
II. When Advisory Boards Should be Established 51
III. Existing Advisory Boards 52
IV. Advisory Board Mission Statement 53
V. Federal Advisory Committee Act Charter 53
VI. Scope of Advisory Boards 54
VII. Role of Regulated and Regulating Agencies 56
VIII. Advisory Board Membership 56
IX. Membership Selection Processes for Advisory Boards 57
X. Role of Contractors 59
XI. Role of Local Government Officials 59
XII. Decision-Making Process 60
XIII. Operating Procedures 60
XIV. Education and Training 61
XV. Accountability 65
XVI. Interaction with the Public 66
XVII. Advisory Board Input on Negotiated Cleanup Agreements 66
XVIII. Administrative and Technical Assistance Funding 67
XIX. Evaluating Advisory Boards 70
XX. Networking Advisory Boards 73
Conclusion 74
CHAPTER 5: FUNDING AND PRIORITY SETTING 75
Introduction 75
Background on the Nature of the Problem 76
Recommendations 84
I. Overview 84
II. Pre-appropriation Priority Setting of Cleanup Activities 84
A. Prioritize Activities Rather than Sites or Risk 85
B. "Risk Plus Other Factors" Priority Setting 85
C. Budget Consultation and Milestone Setting 89
III. Flexible Fair Share Allocation of Appropriations Shortfalls 94
IV. When Shortfalls Threaten the Ability to Meet Milestones 95
V. The Importance of Stable, But Not Necessarily Level, Funding . . 96
Conclusion 96
IV
-------
CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY BUILDING 97
Introduction 97
Continuing Problems 97
Recommendations 98
I. Communities of Color, Indigenous Peoples, and Low-Income
Communities 98
II. Local Government 99
III. Tribal Governments 101
IV. State Governments 102
V. Federal Agencies 102
VI. General Capacity Building 104
Conclusion 104
APPENDIX A: FFERDC Members and Alternates
APPENDIX B: FFERDC Charter and Ground Rules
APPENDIX C: History of the FFERDC Process
APPENDIX D: Agency Guidance Documents for Advisory Boards
APPENDIX E: Membership Selection Process
-------
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Statement of the Committee
The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (the Committee)
believes cooperation and trust must permeate our nation's efforts to meet the challenge of
cleaning up environmental contamination at federal facilities. Protection of our environment
and the health of our communities requires individuals from federal agencies, state, tribal and
local governments, communities, and active organizations to work together to seek solutions
to address the environmental contamination existing at federal facilities or as a result of
federal activities. Cooperation is needed to ensure cleanup decisions are made in an open
and fiscally responsible manner. We believe this philosophy is consistent with democratic
principles, and fundamental to our quality of life and the responsibility we have for the well
being of future generations.
The Committee, because it represents a diversity of perspectives and experiences, has helped
lay the foundation for cooperative relationships and partnerships through its own interactions,
and the publication of its recommendations in an Interim Report in 1993. Through its efforts,
and the efforts of many others working at or concerned about Federal Facilities cleanup, the
Committee has witnessed more meaningful and collaborative stakeholder involvement in the
cleanup decision-making process. Relationships among regulated and regulating agencies and
affected communities have begun to improve. However, these relationships are still fairly
tenuous and fragile. Particularly in light of increasing fiscal constraints, these relationships
must provide the basis for setting priorities at federal facilities. The Committee is publishing
this Final Report to assist the on-going efforts necessary to ensure federal facility cleanup
decisions protect human health and the environment for current and future generations, are
cost effective, and reflect the values of affected communities.
Nature of the Problem
Based on federal agency estimates, the U.S. government is responsible for addressing
environmental contamination at approximately 61,155 sites nationwide.1 The cost of
cleaning up these sites is expected to be between $230 billion and $390 billion over the next
1 Throughout the Final Report, the Committee uses the term "site" to refer to an area of contamination, and
the term "facility" to refer to the broader geographic area within which a contaminated site is located or with
which it may be associated. Not all "sites" or "facilities" discussed in this document may be considered
"federal facilities" under Section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).
vii
-------
FFERDC Final Report
75 years. Many different types of sites are contaminated including, but not limited to,
abandoned mines, former weapons production facilities, underground tanks, and landfills.
These sites contain contaminants such as radioactive waste, mining waste, unexploded
ordnance, fuels, and solvents.
Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DOD) activities are responsible
for most of the federal facility contamination. For the most part, these facilities served and
continue to serve national security objectives, which have often taken primacy over
environmental stewardship objectives and sometimes promoted a general resistance to
external oversight. Contaminated sites found on lands managed by U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and Department of the Interior (DOI) generally resulted from the
activities of private parties and other government entities. USD A and DOI believe that
abandoned and inactive mines on public lands are not generally "federal facilities" under
Section 120 of CERCLA. The Committee did not spend time discussing this matter,
therefore, the views of other Committee members may differ.
Due to the magnitude of the contamination and the huge cost of clean up, priorities must be
set regarding where and how to spend available funds. Priority setting and funding
allocation must be done in a fair manner that stakeholders perceive as legitimate.
Historically, approaches to public involvement associated with federal facilities have created
significant mistrust among stakeholders, particularly those in communities of color, low-
income communities, and local government agencies.
The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee
In 1992, the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee ("the
Committee") was federally chartered under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to address these and other issues. The goal of the Committee was to develop consensus
policy recommendations aimed at improving the process by which federal facility
environmental cleanup decisions are made, such that these decisions reflect the priorities and
concerns of all stakeholders. This Final Report sets forth the Committee's consensus
recommendations.
Committee members included individuals from EPA, USDA, DOI, DOE, DOD (and its
Military Services), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NO A A), and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); state, tribal and local
governments; and numerous other nationally, regionally and locally based environmental,
community, environmental justice, Native American and labor organizations. Committee
members participated as individuals, not as official representatives of their agencies or
organizations. All of the signatories to this report have agreed to work proactively toward
the implementation of the recommendations.
vin
-------
Executive Summary
The Committee's Interim Report
The Committee published an Interim Report in February 1993, that focused on
recommendations for improving the dissemination of federal facilities cleanup information;
stakeholder involvement in key federal facilities cleanup decisions, particularly through the
use of advisory boards; and consultation on federal facilities cleanup funding decisions and
setting priorities in the event of funding shortfalls. Since the publication of the Interim
Report, there have been significant changes in the way federal facility cleanup decisions are
made. For example, most federal agencies established information dissemination policies and
central points of contact for public stakeholders to obtain information about environmental
contamination, as recommended in the Interim Report. Over 200 facilities established
advisory boards that provide input from a wide diversity of public stakeholders affected by
the facilities' operations and cleanup actions.
Overview of the Final Report
In producing this Final Report, the Committee has attempted to build on the recent successes
of agency and community efforts to involve stakeholders and include recommendations that
consider the lessons learned from these efforts. The Committee clarifies the intent of
recommendations in the Interim Report where misunderstandings have developed and offers
new recommendations to address the changing environment in which federal facilities cleanup
decisions are being made. These recommendations attempt to create an open, public
consultative process that originates at the facility level and extends through the entire
hierarchy of the federal government. The Committee recognizes that all facilities, agencies
and communities have unique structures, histories and concerns, and thus encourage flexible
approaches based upon the principles of inclusiveness, openness, and accountability.
This executive summary briefly outlines the major recommendations set forth in the Final
Report. The executive summary follows the structure of the report, which is organized into
the following chapters:
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Principles for Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities
• Chapter 3: Community Involvement
• Chapter 4: Advisory Boards
• Chapter 5: Funding and Priority Setting
• Chapter 6: Capacity Building
The report also contains appendices that include information on the history of the Committee,
a list of Committee members, the Committee's charter, and guidance documents and agency
points of contact for advisory boards.
IX
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Chapter 2: Principles for Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities
In August 1995, the Committee released a document of fourteen principles it felt should be
the basis for making federal facility cleanup decisions and should apply to all persons and
institutions involved in this process. Chapter 2 contains elaboration and clarification of each
of the principles, which are listed below. The Committee offers the principles as a
foundation for the recommendations stated in the remainder of this report. The principles
are designed to be complementary of one another. They are listed here in an order that
strengthens their reinforcing nature rather than in an order of priority.
1. Nature of the Obligation—The federal government has caused or permitted
environmental contamination. Therefore, it has not only a legal, but an ethical and moral
obligation to clean up that contamination in a manner that, at a minimum, protects human
health and the environment and minimizes burdens on future generations. In many instances,
this environmental contamination has contributed to the degradation of human health, the
environment, and economic vitality in local communities. The federal government must not
only comply with the law; it should strive to be a leader in the field of environmental
cleanup, which includes addressing public health concerns, ecological restoration, and waste
management.
2. Sustained Commitment to Environmental Cleanup—The federal government must
make a sustained commitment to completing environmental cleanups at its facilities at a
reasonable and defensible pace that is protective of human health and the environment and
allows closing federal facilities to return to economic use as promptly as possible.
3. Environmental Justice—The federal government has an obligation to make special efforts
to reduce the adverse impacts of environmental contamination related to federal facility
activities on affected communities that have historically lacked economic and political power,
adequate health services, and other resources.
4. Consistency of Treatment between Federal Facilities and Private Sites—Federal
facilities should be treated in a manner that is consistent with private sector sites, especially
in terms of the application of cleanup standards.
5. Cleanup Contracting—Federal facility environmental cleanup contracts should be
managed as efficiently as possible by using contract mechanisms that specify, measure, and
reward desired outcomes and efficiencies rather than simply reimburse for effort or pay for
an end product. Federal agencies should strive to ensure that cleanup contracts and
employment opportunities benefit local communities, particularly those that are lacking
economic resources and have been disadvantaged by contamination. Contractors and
-------
Executive Summary
agencies responsible for cleanup should work in partnership with local communities to
achieve cleanup goals.
6. Fiscal Management—Funding mechanisms for cleanup should provide flexibility in the
timing of expenditures and ensure that cleanup activities are conducted in a manner that is as
efficient as possible.
7. Interdependent Decision-Making Roles and Responsibilities—Numerous institutions
and people play very distinct and important roles in the decision-making process for federal
facility cleanups. These include: facility level managers, national program managers,
financial officers, and cabinet officials within the agencies responsible for conducting the
cleanup; federal, state and tribal regulators; tribes as sovereign nations; local governments;
local, state, tribal, and federal health officials; public stakeholders; and the President, Office
of Management and Budget; and Congress. These roles are highly interdependent, reflecting
both the site-specific and national dimensions of the federal facility environmental cleanup
problem. The decision-making process must ensure that all of these roles are preserved and
balanced if our nation is to complete the mission of cleaning up federal facilities in an
efficient, equitable, and timely manner.
8. The Role of Negotiated Cleanup Agreements—Negotiated cleanup agreements in many
instances play a critical role both in setting priorities at a site and providing a means to
balance the respective interdependent roles and responsibilities in federal facilities cleanup
decision making.
9. Consideration of Human Health and Environmental Risk and Other Factors in
Federal Facility Environmental Cleanup Decision Making—Risk to human health and the
environment is an important and well established factor that should continue to be a primary
consideration in federal facility cleanup decision making, including setting environmental
cleanup priorities and milestones. However:
a) Human Health and Environmental Risk—Risk assessments and other analytical
tools used to evaluate risks to human health (including non-cancer as well as cancer
health effects) and the environment all have scientific limitations and require
assumptions in their development. As decision-aiding tools, risk assessments should
only be used in a manner that recognizes those limitations and assumptions.
Moreover, risk assessments ought not be used by any party as a basis for unilaterally
setting aside legal requirements that embody public health principles and other
important societal values.
XI
-------
FFERDC Final Report
b) In addition to human health and environmental risk, other factors that warrant
consideration in setting environmental cleanup priorities and milestones include:
• cultural, social, and economic factors, including environmental justice
considerations;
• short-term and long-term ecological effects and environmental impacts
in general, including damage to natural resources and lost use;
• making land available for other uses;
• acceptability of the action to regulators, tribes, and public stakeholders;
• statutory requirements and legal agreements;
• life cycle costs;
• pragmatic considerations, such as the ability to execute cleanup projects
in a given year, and the feasibility of carrying out the activity in
relation to other activities at the facility;
• overall cost and effectiveness of a proposed activity; and
• actual and anticipated funding availability.
The Committee believes that fiscal constraints do not justify failing to take actions to
protect human health and environment, but may result in the need to set priorities
about what cleanup actions can occur in any given year.
10. The Importance of Pollution Prevention and Pollution Control Activities—Effective
pollution prevention and pollution control activities are essential to prevent future
environmental cleanup problems. Therefore, in carrying out their mission, federal agencies
should view such activities as a cost of doing business and fully comply with environmental
laws and regulations that are designed to accomplish these objectives.
11. The Role of Future Land Use Determinations in Making Cleanup
Decisions—Reasonably anticipated future land uses should be considered when making
cleanup decisions for federal facilities, provided that at the time of any land transfer there are
adequate safeguards to protect land holders, those who will receive or lease the land, and
surrounding communities. The communities that are affected by federal facility cleanups,
along with their local governing bodies and affected Indian Tribes, should be given a
significant role in determining reasonably anticipated future use of federal property that is
expected to be transferred, and in how future use determinations will be used in making
cleanup decisions.
12. The Role of Studies in the Cleanup Process—The identification and characterization of
contamination and the evaluation of health impacts on human populations are essential parts
of the cleanup process. Efforts to streamline the cleanup process should focus on reducing
paperwork and moving away from adversarial relations toward cooperation, not the arbitrary
capping of funding for studies.
xn
-------
Executive Summary
13. The Need for a Systematic Approach to Decision Making and Priority
Setting—Federal facility priority-setting decisions should be made in a manner that
recognizes their interconnectedness to'Other environmental problems.
14. Stakeholder Involvement—Public stakeholders and local governments historically have
not been involved adequately in the federal facility cleanup decision-making and priority-
setting process. Agencies responsible for conducting and overseeing cleanup and related
public health activities must take steps to address this problem, with the overall goal of
ensuring that federal facility cleanup decisions and priorities reflect a broad spectrum of
stakeholder input from affected communities including indigenous peoples, low-income
communities, and people of color. Like pollution prevention and pollution control measures,
meaningful stakeholder involvement has in many instances resulted in significant cleanup cost
reductions. It should therefore not only be considered as a cost of doing business but as a
potential means of efficiently determining and achieving acceptable cleanup goals.
Chapter 3: Community Involvement
Since its inception, the Committee has stressed that government agencies should not conduct
their business and public interactions in a "Decide, Announce, and Defend" fashion.
Involving communities early and often in the decision-making process enables public
stakeholders to help agencies make cost-efficient decisions leading to faster cleanups. The
Committee's Interim Report included several recommendations about community
involvement, primarily regarding information dissemination and exchange. Building on these
recommendations and Principle 14 (above), the recommendations in Chapter 3 are aimed at
improving community involvement processes to more actively engage those most affected by
federal facilities.
The Committee believes that all community involvement processes must be transparent,
open, interactive, inclusive, and responsive. Committee members also stress that agencies
need to develop a communications structure in which public concerns are communicated to
both headquarters and field office levels. Toward these ends, the Committee recommends
that federal agencies draft or revisit current policies and guidance documents >on community
involvement to ensure that field staff are encouraged to:
• conduct assessments of public stakeholders' needs and communities' existing
resources prior to initiating community involvement programs;
• actively seek out and solicit the full diversity of public stakeholders in communities,
particularly communities of color, indigenous peoples, low-income communities, and
local governments;
xm
-------
FFERDC Final Report
• utilize appropriate methods of communication, that are culturally sensitive and
relevant to the specific community, such as local media outlets and local government
activities;
• inform the local communities, including communities of color and low-income
communities, of cleanup employment opportunities; and
• involve local communities in future land use planning efforts, particularly as it relates
to the cleanup of a facility.
Chapter 4: Advisory Boards
Chapter 4 of this report includes recommendations that have emerged through the collective
experience of the first two years of implementation of the Committee's original
recommendations regarding advisory boards. The Committee wishes to make clear, first,
that advisory boards should be used to complement rather than duplicate or supplant broader
site-level cleanup public involvement initiatives. With that in mind, the Committee makes
the following specific recommendations regarding advisory boards:
Establishment of Advisory Boards—Federal agencies should establish advisory boards to
provide independent policy and technical advice to the regulated and regulating agencies with
respect to key cleanup decisions. Boards should be formed when an affected local, state,
tribal or federal government entity requests the establishment of such a board, or when at
least fifty residents of the community or region in which a facility is located sign a petition
requesting an advisory board. When more than one advisory group exists for a facility or
region, agencies should consider consolidating their activities, or establishing clear
communication between the groups to determine if and how their scope of issues overlaps.
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)2—Whether or not agencies charter their advisory
boards under FACA, the Committee recommends that boards and agencies comply with the
spirit of FACA regarding maintaining balanced membership, holding open meetings, and
providing public notice for the meetings in manners that are appropriate for the facility's
community. For agencies that do charter their advisory boards under FACA, the Committee
encourages agencies to make very judicious use of FACA authorities and do so in
consultation with board members. Finally, chartering agencies should seek to reduce the
bureaucratic burden of the law on the board members to the greatest extent possible.
Scope—Advisory boards should focus on protection of human health, cleanup, waste
management, and technology development issues that are clearly relevant to the cleanup of
2FACA, Public Law No. 92-463, 5 U.S. Code Appendix 2.
xiv
-------
Executive Summary
the facility. Boards should have the discretion to hear about the social, economic, cultural,
aesthetic, public health, and worker health and safety effects of cleanup and waste
management and technology development issues related to cleanup. Advisory boards should
remain separate from local reuse authorities, but should work together with them wherever
possible. Advisory boards should only address anticipated future land uses when they relate
to cleanup decisions, and when efforts are made to involve stakeholders sufficiently with key
interests in land use, such as local governments, in the discussions.
Agency Roles—The regulated agency should serve as the host of the advisory board and
should provide administrative assistance, meeting facilities, and other logistical support as
necessary. Regulated and regulating agencies roles should be defined in three ways. First,
the most senior-level person available at the facility from the regulated agency should
participate in board meetings. Second, participants from the regulated and regulating
agencies should be responsive to the concerns and advice of the advisory board or provide a
reasonable explanation for not adhering to the advice. Third, representatives from regulating
and regulated agencies should serve as information sources to the board, providing updates
and background as needed. Agencies should consider including contractor representatives as
a part of their team particularly to help in this last function. However, contractor
participation should never serve as a substitute for the participation of senior representatives
of the regulated agency.
Membership—Advisory boards should reflect the full diversity of views, ethnicity, race, and
distribution of income in the affected community and region and be composed primarily of
people who are directly affected by facility cleanup activities. An open and fair membership
selection process that leads to the creation of a diverse and balanced board should be used.
Boards should develop procedures for adding, replacing, or removing members.
Operations—At the outset of the advisory process, the board should determine explicitly how
it will make decisions about what advice and recommendations it should give, who should
give the advice and, in particular, how to ensure that dissenting views are addressed.
Advisory board members should develop appropriate ground rules and operating procedures
to allow for the efficient and productive operation of the group. (The chapter outlines a
number of specific rules and procedures to be considered.) Advisory boards should establish
a self-evaluation process to address the goals of the board at the various stages of its
development. Federal agencies are also encouraged to support efforts that will assist
communication between public stakeholders in various advisory board efforts across the
country.
Education and Training—An advisory board training needs assessment should be conducted
for each advisory board. It should take into account needs for technical assistance
notification, orientation, team building, and ongoing education.
xv
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Public Interaction—Members of the public must be given opportunities to be kept
adequately informed of and involved in cleanup decisions affecting them.
Funding—The regulated agency should provide advisory board funding for both
administrative support and technical assistance. Technical assistance funding should be used
to complement, rather than duplicate, the technical programs of both regulated and regulating
agencies. Boards must demonstrate a clear need to be eligible for technical assistance. (The
chapter outlines, in detail, the general principles the Committee agreed to regarding each
type of funding, as well as funding implementation issues.)
Chapter 5: Funding and Priority Setting
The 1993 Interim Report contained a number of recommendations regarding funding and
priority setting in the context of limited federal budgets. Since that time, however, federal
budgets have shrunk even faster than anticipated. To compound the problem, many federal
facilities are now shifting efforts from the study and assessment phase of cleanup to the more
expensive remediation work itself. The recommendations in this chapter seek to clarify and
revise the recommendations in the Interim Report, taking into account the current budget
situation. In order to define the nature of the problem, the chapter also explains: the
important elements of the federal budgeting process; the role of Executive Order 12088 and
negotiated cleanup agreements; and the importance of strategic planning, life-cycle cost
analysis, and project baselines.
The recommendations focus strongly on building consensus at the local facility level on
cleanup priorities and budgets at early stages of the budget process, rather than relying solely
on the expectation that the agencies responsible for conducting the cleanup will ask for
sufficient funds to meet their cleanup obligations and, if Congress does not appropriate
sufficient funds, the possibility of enforcement relief for missed milestones. These issues are
discussed under the "Pre-appropriation Priority Setting" heading below. In addition, the
Committee called, and continues to call for, a flexible "fair share" approach to the allocation
of funding shortfalls under certain circumstances, rather than an inflexible pro-rata allocation
of funding shortfalls, as many have interpreted the Committee's previous recommendations.
These issues are clarified and discussed under the "Flexible Fair Share Allocation" heading
below.
In general, the Committee strongly recommends the active engagement of all stakeholders in
important cleanup decisions, the use of advisory boards where possible and useful, and a
high degree of cooperation and communication between all involved agencies. These
partnerships and relationships are critical because they allow for public stakeholder and
regulator support of cleanup priorities and schedules during the early stages of the budget
xvi
-------
Executive Summary
cycle. This support is essential, particularly in the event that a funding shortfall occurs and
priorities need to be reestablished.
The general concepts in Chapter 5 are designed to apply where negotiated agreements are or
should be used as well as in instances where negotiated agreements are not appropriate.
Pre-appropriation Priority Setting of Cleanup Activities—The Committee recommends
three actions that should occur in pre-appropriation priority setting: 1) prioritize activities
rather than site risks, 2) use of a "risk plus other factors" approach to priority setting, and 3)
where appropriate, a particular approach to budget consultation and milestone setting.
Prioritize Activities Rather than Sites or Risk—Priority setting at the facility level should not
be limited to prioritizing the relative risks posed by site contamination but should go further
to include prioritizing the activities that are designed to cleanup the contamination. Relative
risks will no doubt have a bearing on the setting of priorities, but relative risks should not
become the de facto priorities.
"Risk Plus Other Factors" Priority Setting—The term "risk plus other factors" is used by the
Committee to refer to the consideration of risk to human health and the environment along
with other important factors in setting cleanup priorities. The Committee supports efforts of
the regulated agencies to used risk-based priority setting to build their cleanup budgets, as
long as priorities are set with the agreement of the regulators and in consultation with other
stakeholders and in accordance with Principle 9 of Chapter 2. The assignment of priority
levels to all agreed-upon activities or sites should provide the basis for reconsidering out year
milestones and altering programmatic plans when appropriated funding does not match
requested levels.
The Committee notes that either human health or environment (or both) may serve as a
starting point in priority setting, and recommends numerous other factors that should be
considered as well. The Committee also describes conditions that must be met for a "risk
plus other factors" system to work, including (but not limited to): the application of
standards to remedy selection and the actual selection of remedies independent of the risk
ranking; and, confidence amongst all parties in the approach to categorization based on
relative risk and the methodology used for priority setting. Ultimately, the Committee
believes that stakeholders at each facility must decide the mix and relative importance of each
factor in setting priorities. Also, each regulated agency should establish, in consultation with
other stakeholders, procedures for re-opening rankings and priorities outside of the normal
cycle, should significant new information be discovered.
Budget Consultation and Milestone Setting—In this section, the Committee sets forth
recommendations for a budget consultation and milestone setting process that the Committee
believes will help improve federal facility cleanups. In making these recommendations, the
xvn
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Committee is not recommending that all existing negotiated cleanup agreements should be
renegotiated. However, where all parties agree that existing agreements may benefit from
this approach, or where agreements are not yet established the Committee believes a process
such as that recommended in Chapter 5 should be considered for inclusion in the agreement
at the option of the parties to the agreement. Moreover, the recommended process reflects a
delicate balance and also must be carefully balanced with other elements of the agreements
(to be negotiated for each facility), which are intended to work together as a whole.
Two of the important features of this process are: 1) for the regulated and regulating
agencies to determine the cleanup work that is required to be performed in consideration of.
but not necessarily "driven by," budget targets; and, 2) to do so in a timeframe that coincides
with the federal budget process.
The recommended process includes setting project end dates, out year milestones, and near
term milestones. Project end dates are for the completion of major portions of the cleanup
or completion of cleanup of the entire facility. The Committee recognizes that many of these
dates will be a number of years in the future. By nature, these dates have the most degree of
uncertainty. Nonetheless, project end dates serve an important function in establishing the
overall pace of cleanup including the setting of near term milestones. Out year milestones
are for the completion of major cleanup activities critical to the completion of the project for
the time period beyond the budget planning year until the project end date. Since these
milestones are beyond the "planning" year of the federal budget cycle, they are not included
in the current budget request, but are important to out year fiscal planning. Near term
milestones are critical for both budget development and to show commitment by regulated
agencies for cleanup activities that will occur in the next fiscal year (i.e., the "budget" year
of the federal budget cycle) and the year for which the budget is being developed (i.e., the
"planning" year of the federal cycle).
The chapter goes on to describe in detail the process that should be used to ensure that the
project end dates, out year milestones, and near term milestones are met, and the procedures
to use if they are not. In making its recommendations, the Committee recognizes that the
regulators will retain their authority to determine whether or not to approve a request to
modify or extend the near term milestones; and the regulated agencies retain their right to
invoke dispute resolution under terms of the negotiated cleanup agreement. One of the
important features of the recommended process is full disclosure of any discrepancies
between budget targets and cleanup requirements.
Flexible Fair Share Allocation of Appropriations Shortfalls—The Committee believes the
above recommendations will greatly facilitate the ability of all stakeholders to subsequently
reset priorities and allocate resources in an understandable, timely and equitable manner in
the event of an appropriations shortfall. For either facility-level or national/regional-level of
decision making regarding funding allocation, the Committee recommends that the original
XVlll
-------
Executive Summary
proportion in the proposed cleanup budget should be the starting point for allocating
appropriations shortfalls at these various levels, assuming that the budget was built: a) in
consultation with stakeholders; b) in consideration of regulatory agreements; and c) in
consideration of risk plus other factors. However, the Committee is not recommending a
single unitary approach be taken to address appropriation shortfalls. Rather, each agency or
appropriate subset of an agency, in consultation with regulators and other stakeholders,
should establish and document an approach that adheres to flexible fair share features, which
are detailed in the chapter.
When Shortfalls Threaten the Ability to Meet Milestones—The Committee anticipates that
its recommendations in this chapter will significantly reduce the number of situations in
which budget building shortfalls are likely to lead to missing milestones in negotiated cleanup
agreements. It also recognizes that it is impossible to develop detailed solutions that address
all such conflicts in advance. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that the best way to
resolve these conflicts is to continue, as much as possible, with the same approach and spirit
recommended for earlier stages of the budget process. Therefore, the Committee expects
regulating agencies will consider in good faith the adjustment of milestones and other
requirements and regulated agencies will explore the availability of additional funds within
their agency budgets. This is often the case now, particularly where regulated and regulating
agencies have developed working partnerships and when shortfalls are large and unexpected.
The Committee recognizes that its recommendations to mitigate conflicts between budget
building shortfalls and milestones might be interpreted, within both the Executive Branch and
Congress, as eliminating the legal pressure to complete cleanup activities. It is important,
therefore, to remind budget decision makers that budget decisions that "test the envelope" of
such "safety-valve" approaches threaten the operation of the entire federal facilities cleanup
process, and in particular the growing level of trust resulting, in part, from the Committee's
previous recommendations.
The Importance of Stable, But Not Necessarily Level, Funding—The Committee believes
that a stable funding base over the life of cleanup projects could greatly facilitate pre-
appropriation priority setting because it would provide regulated and regulating agencies, as
well as other stakeholders, with a greater degree of certainty and the ability to efficiently
plan and sequence cleanup activities and projects in a manner that is consistent with agreed
upon priorities.
In recognition of the fact that facility level managers must comply with predetermined budget
constraints, the Committee believes that if the regulators and other stakeholders have made a
good faith effort but have not succeeded in accommodating federal fiscal constraints in
setting cleanup priorities, as the process moves forward, Executive Branch decision makers
above the facility level should request full funding for the environmental cleanup
requirements that cannot be accommodated within the predetermined budget constraints. If
xix
-------
FFERDC Final Report
the funding gap between the cleanup requirements and the budget target for a given year
cannot be bridged, the Committee recommends full disclosure, within the limits of existing
laws and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations and policies, so that all
stakeholders and key decision makers in the budget process can make informed decisions.
Chapter 6: Capacity Building
The effectiveness of the earlier recommendations in this report, which seek to improve
federal facility cleanup decision making by increasing stakeholder involvement, are
dependent on the various stakeholder groups having the capacity to participate effectively.
The Committee thus makes recommendations on how to build and maintain stakeholder
participation capacity.
In general, the Committee recommends that special efforts be undertaken to consult with
those groups that have been commonly excluded from decision-making processes—including
communities of color, indigenous peoples and low-income communities—and to expand and
develop their capacities to participate effectively in such processes. The Committee also
recommends that local, tribal, and state governments be supported in an effort to maintain,
and in some cases increase, their capacity to be effective participants. Federal regulated and
regulating agencies need to expand their capacities to communicate and work with the wide
diversity of stakeholders affected by federal facilities cleanups. Specifically, the Committee
recommends the following:
Communities of Color, Indigenous Peoples, and Low-Income Communities—Where there
is a need, federal agencies should assist these communities in developing the technical and
analytical expertise needed to be effective participants. This may include, among other
activities: supporting or developing training and technical assistance programs; involving
historically black and hispanic colleges and universities, tribal colleges and other special
emphasis educational institutions in environmental restoration technology research and
development; and supporting national and regional forums for representatives of such
communities to share ideas and approaches for involvement in decision-making processes.
Local Government—At the national level, each of the regulated agencies should work with
representatives of local governments to determine general principles to guide agency-local
government relationships, and the best appropriate national mechanisms for establishing and
maintaining the capacities of local government. This consultation process should begin as
soon as possible. The regulated and regulating agencies should also undertake similar
consultative processes at the local level.
Tribal Governments—Consistent with the government-to-government relationship that exists
between the federal government and Indian tribes, the Committee recommends that specific
xx
-------
Executive Summary
tribal capacity-building programs be negotiated by the relevant federal agencies and Indian
tribes. Consistent with the federal-Indian tribe trust relationship, the identification of
relevant, federally recognized Indian tribes should be made using broad criteria.
State Governments—In order to maintain the capability of the states in their role of
oversight and insuring protection of human health and the environment, the Defense State
Memoranda of Agreement (DSMOA) grant program should continue to be fully funded. If
funds to support state participation in federal cleanups through DSMOA are significantly
reduced or eliminated, states will be forced to find other sources of funding to continue their
activities. Unless other state or federal funds are available, state regulators may have to drop
out of the DSMOA program and pursue cost recovery through other means, which may be
time-consuming and costly.
Federal Agencies—The Committee recommends that federal agencies expand and improve
upon their current efforts to ensure that field staff working in low-income communities and
communities of color are effective at communicating and partnering with these communities.
Community members should be considered for participating in and conducting some of the
training activities.
General Capacity Building—The Committee recommends that EPA fund the development of
a public stakeholder's guide to federal facility cleanups which communicates the basic
concepts of the Committee's recommendations within the greater context of explaining the
federal facility decision-making process.
Conclusion
Building on the recommendations from the Committee's 1993 Interim Report, this report
recommends that federal agencies undertake more expansive and meaningful community
involvement in general, and make more effective use of advisory boards. It also
recommends that agencies use a combination of approaches to priority setting and the
allocation of funding shortfalls. Finally, because federal facilities cleanup issues are so
complex, federal agencies, state tribal and local governments, communities and other
stakeholders must forge partnerships that will enable our nation to make the best decisions
possible to address environmental contamination at federal facilities. Through the
collaborative processes recommended in this report, the Committee hopes that the federal
government and its stakeholders will rise to the challenge posed by federal facilities cleanups
by establishing a model for responsible democratic decision-making resulting in reasonable
and credible cleanup programs.
xxi
-------
Chapter 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Nature of the Problem
Based on a 1995 report, the U.S. government is responsible for addressing approximately
61,155 contaminated sites. Current cost estimates for cleaning up environmental
contamination at these sites range from $230 billion to $390 billion over the next 75 years.
During the most recent fiscal year, the federal government spent $9 billion on efforts to
identify, address, and clean up this contamination.3 The contamination includes many types
of sites ranging from abandoned mines in remote locations to major weapons production
facilities adjacent to urban areas. Cleanup at many of these sites will require both new
technologies and creative applications of existing technologies.
Although most federal agencies face some degree of environmental contamination at their
facilities, the estimated number and magnitude of these problems are greatest at DOD and
DOE facilities (see Figure 1). Most of the environmental contamination associated with
federal facilities is the result of DOE or DOD activities. For the most part, these facilities
served and continue to serve national security needs. Historically, the national defense
mission often took primacy over other objectives, including environmental stewardship. It
also promoted a general resistance to external oversight. As a result, the full nature and
extent of the environmental contamination caused by the operations of these facilities only
recently has begun to be realized.
Unlike DOD and DOE, the USDA and DOI directly caused only a small percentage of
environmental contamination on lands they manage. Laws such as the Mining Act of 1872
authorized nonfederal activities to take place on public lands that resulted in active, inactive
and abandoned mines, municipal and county landfills, and shooting ranges, all of which have
significant environmental contamination associated with them. "Midnight dumping" of
hazardous waste, illegal "drug labs," pipeline breaks, and releases of petroleum products and
hazardous substances associated with transportation accidents have also contributed to the
environmental contamination present on these federal lands. USDA and DOI believe that
many of these sites are not "federal facilities" under CERCLA. They are included as part of
these agencies' cleanup programs where appropriate to protect human health and the
environment. The Committee did not spend time discussing this matter, therefore, the views
of other Committee members may differ.
^Improving Federal Facility Cleanup, Report of the Federal Facilities Policy Group, October 1995.
-------
e
•<
Cfl
2?
2
3
•a
o (3
lhs
55 -a E 3
o S S o,
m 3 m
r- c i
#
#
O
rt
O
Numbe;
B
O
j3
(N
in
S
B
,2
X)
m
fN
tft
B
,2
x>
CN
OO
(«
ON
m
6^
E
,2
3
o
en
(ft
#
#
*
B
O
X>
S
m
o
5 &
« E
.§ 3
K "u
u 2
E JS
11
a s
»n
ON
O\
U-
0)
3
•a
«T
•^
^
VO
0
O\
><
U.
a>
•§
U
•a
_4J
1
o
•
a
f
u
XI
aj
Estimat
>*.
w^
IN
- «, *
Es*
•0 .S Q
- "T!
J, e •
*-< >* *>
>~i _. ^
2°o
>o
<
>,
o
ts
e
>,
+
»n
t^
o
en
j=
'^
-,
(^
O
U
a o.
2 3
1 1
w T;
B B B
.2 2 .2
111
Tt -H 1^
cn (N cn
v>
.1 2.2
'BE!
\o \o in
»— < ^-« ^Hr
B B B
.2 .2 .2
333
SEE
fA
* # #
# * #
# # #
* # #
* * #
B B B
.2 .2 .2
333
XI XI XI
IA1 O — <
r*i CN oi
«=> w=> w=>
# # #
* * *
# # *
B B B
222
333
XI XI XI
-< ON VO
so v-j vd
6^ V) 6%
_ "2 «
a o s
C rt CT1
o ci «
ed U k.
^j rf in ^o
Qj) Ov ON ^
13 *""" *~" *~l
3
X>
«
3
<
2
>
g
U
bo
<
"8
rt
u
private parti
ernments
& 1
C ^_
U cd
W) U
< J2
•o
c
cd
t«
•E
rrt
Agency, private p:
local governments
|
"»
o
£
u
;S
'o
i£
2
•rt
U
H<
j
O
t:
Q
cx
s
i
^
G
Improving Federal Facilities
e
o
(*M
•a
D.
rt
5
" under Section 120 of CERCLA.
en
U
IS
1
Is
U
T3
1>
tl--
>%
1
c
U
CO)
I
u
S3
to
•o
C
—
o
s
=1
c.
c
o
(D
c:
'e
OJ
_>
(J
.1
73
B
cd
T3
USDA believe that abandone
•a
B
CTJ
0
Q
CL)
osts that include many unique operational, safety, and
o
C
o
a
s
T3
Si
2
o
o
VI
rt
*O
c
rt
C
S
a.
Q
'V
>
(U
*c
>.
o1
"g
B
1
c*
o
I
1
tn
&• g-
'"3 a
4S JB
o
includes waste management,
in addition to environmental
(L) E/5
•f 1
5 °
t &
w 5
o 3
Q %
u
bO
«
re
Q
a>
a
1
C
3
o
«
only Defense Environmental
u
T3
_3
O
B
Q
O
Q
-------
Chapter 1
While DOE and DOD cleanups must be publicly funded, USDA and DOI must ensure that
responsible parties conduct cleanup actions and/or recover public funds used for cleanups on
their lands, if a viable responsible party or parties can be located. Where USDA and DOI
and are responsible parties they must contribute an appropriate share of the cleanup costs. In
the cases in which environmental contamination has resulted from DOD or DOE activities on
land USDA and DOI now manage, DOD and DOE funds are sought. Further, as federal
trustees under the natural resource damage provisions of CERCLA, USDA and DOI, as well
as other federal agencies, must, as appropriate, seek performance by responsible parties,
public funds, and/or recovery of public funds, to address natural resource damages.
Priorities for cleanup activities must be established because of the magnitude of
environmental contamination at federal facilities, the responsibility of the federal government
to address the contamination it caused or permitted to occur, and resources needed to conduct
cleanup. The federal government must nonetheless sustain its commitment to address the
contamination it caused or permitted to occur. The Departments of Defense and Energy, in
particular, face significant challenges to set priorities and allocate funding in a fair manner
that stakeholders perceive as legitimate. As a nation, we will be making difficult decisions
regarding the nature of these cleanups and the priorities of actions to be taken at federal
facilities into the next century.
Past approaches to public involvement associated with the national defense missions of DOD
and DOE facilities bred significant mistrust among stakeholders. The federal government has
an opportunity to address this mistrust by making cleanup information publicly available and
involving more public stakeholders in the decision-making process. The Committee
recognizes and commends federal agencies for their actions taken so far to seize this
opportunity. However, work still needs to occur to ensure that the full range of public
stakeholders are meaningfully involved in cleanup decision-making processes.
The problem of mistrust is of particular concern where federal facility environmental
problems affect communities of color and low-income communities that have historically
lacked economic and political power, adequate health services, and other resources. Efforts
have not always been made to address the specific environmental and associated impacts to
these communities. Therefore, federal agencies' credibility in such communities is
particularly tenuous. Strategies for cleanup are inextricably linked to economic development,
future land use, public health, education, housing transportation, and cultural development of
communities. By meaningfully involving public stakeholders from these affected
communities in cleanup decisions, agencies can begin to address their cleanup needs and
build more positive relationships.
Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to address environmental justice concerns in
all of their programs, policies, and activities. Building on this, this report contains
recommendations regarding special efforts that should be made to ensure that affected
-------
FFERDC Final Report
communities, particularly communities of color, indigenous peoples, and low-income
communities, understand and participate in the cleanup process, and that their values are
reflected in the actions taken.
In some cases, local governments have not been adequately involved in the cleanup decision-
making process. Local governments play a critical role because they interact with federal
facility cleanups on many different levels, including as the regulating agency of certain
wastes, as the emergency responder, and as the responsible authority for land use planning.
Several factors limit local government participation in federal facilities cleanup decision
making. Because federal agencies often are not fully aware of local government functions
and responsibilities, there is a lack of guidance and formal mechanisms for interactions
between local governments and federal agencies. As a result, local governments' role in
cleanup advisory boards, and other stakeholder involvement mechanisms is sometimes
unclear. Local government participation has also been hampered because communities
sometimes mistrust local governments' ability to integrate environmental and economic
objectives, and because local governments' capacity and willingness to participate in cleanup
decisions in some instances has been limited. Addressing these barriers is important, because
local governments, in many cases, are the institutional authority that will address the effects
of cleanup decisions long after the federal cleanup agency has withdrawn from the
community. This report also contains recommendations regarding the role that local
governments play in the federal facility cleanup decision-making process.
The History and Goal of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee
The Committee is an advisory committee federally chartered under the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Participants also include individuals from the U.S. Departments of
Agriculture, Defense (and its Military Services), Energy, and the Interior, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry; state, tribal, and local governments; and numerous other nationally, regionally and
locally-based environmental, community, environmental justice, indigenous peoples, and
labor organizations. Further information on the Committee members, charter, ground rules,
members, history is included in Appendices A-C.
The members of the Committee participate as individuals, not as official representatives of
their agencies and organizations. The goal of the Committee is to develop consensus policy
recommendations aimed at improving the process by which federal facility environmental
cleanup decisions are made, such that these decisions reflect the priorities and concerns of all
stakeholders.
-------
Chapter 1
With this goal in mind, the Committee published an Interim Report in February 1993 that
focused on recommendations for improving: the dissemination of federal facilities cleanup
information; stakeholder involvement in key federal facilities cleanup decisions, particularly
through the use of advisory boards; and consultation on federal facilities cleanup funding
decisions and setting priorities in the event of funding shortfalls.
The Interim Report has had a significant impact on the way federal facility cleanup decisions
are made. Most federal agencies have established information dissemination policies and
central points of contact for public stakeholders to obtain information about environmental
contamination. The Committee estimates that over 200 facilities have established advisory
boards that represent a wide diversity of public stakeholders affected by the facilities'
operations and cleanup actions. These boards are providing advice to agency personnel on
issues such as the use of innovative cleanup technologies and setting goals and priorities for
cleanup activities. Examples of how these boards have helped agencies better involve a
broad range of public stakeholders to make more informed and cost-effective cleanup
decisions are included throughout this report.
The Nature of the Committee's Consensus
The principles and recommendations in this report reflect a consensus on the part of all
Committee members listed in Appendix A. As defined by the Committee's ground rules,
consensus was reached when there was no dissent from any Committee member. Although
the dialogue process was not intended to bind any of the organizations, agencies, or
associations of the Committee members and alternates, all of the signatories to this report
have agreed to work proactively toward the implementation of the recommendations
contained in this report.
The Committee hopes that this report will help improve the federal facility cleanup decision-
making process, as its Interim Report did. In proactively working toward the implementation
of these recommendations, the Committee expects participating agencies, particularly EPA,
to support activities designed to ensure that the broad spectrum of people and organizations
with an interest in federal facilities cleanup are aware of and understand the essence of this
report.
Overview of the Report
Since the publication of the Interim Report, the Committee has witnessed a fundamental
change in the way federal agencies approach cleanup. In producing this report the
Committee has attempted to build on the successes of agency efforts to involve stakeholders,
and to include recommendations that consider the lessons learned from these efforts.
-------
FFERDC Final Report
In this report, the Committee has included all relevant recommendations from its Interim
Report. The Committee clarifies the intent of recommendations in the Interim Report where
misunderstandings have developed, and offers new recommendations developed to address
the changing environment in which federal facilities cleanup decisions are being made. The
principles and recommendations elaborated upon in this report are intended to improve the
overall decision-making and priority-setting process. The content of every chapter in the
report is integrally linked, and it should be approached in a holistic manner.
The recommendations in this report attempt to create an open, public consultative process
that originates at the facility level and extends through the entire hierarchy of the federal
government. However, the Committee recognizes that all facilities, agencies, and
communities have unique structures, histories, and concerns. Accordingly, the Committee
encourages flexible approaches based upon the principles of inclusiveness, openness, and
accountability.
CHAPTER 2: PRINCIPLES FOR CLEANUP In August 1995, the Committee released
Principles for Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities to benefit then-current policy
making on federal facility cleanup matters, and to provide a stepping stone for this Final
Report. These principles provide an overall context for the federal facility cleanup decision-
making process. They are stated and elaborated upon in Chapter 2.
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Building on the principles, the
recommendations in this chapter are aimed at improving overall community involvement
processes to more actively engage public stakeholders. Because agencies have for the most
part developed guidance documents on how to implement the recommendations of the Interim
Report, the recommendations in this chapter focus on what these guidance documents should
address in the future.
CHAPTER 4: ADVISORY BOARDS One of the Committee's specific recommendations in
the Interim Report for improving community involvement was the creation of advisory
boards. While many agencies have established advisory boards at their facilities and
developed guidance for their operation, the Committee has identified some continuing
problems with the establishment and operations of advisory boards. The recommendations in
this chapter reiterate how advisory boards should be established, and they focus on
improving the quality of boards' interactions with the federal agencies and other
stakeholders. New recommendations include processes for education and training of board
members, evaluation of boards, and networking boards on a national level.
CHAPTER 5: FUNDING AND PRIORITY SETTING The recommendations in this
chapter update and revise those contained in Chapter 4 of the Interim Report. The primary
objectives of the recommendations contained in this chapter are to promote a credible process
for planning and undertaking federal facility cleanup activities at a reasonable pace that is
-------
Chapter 1
protective of human health and the environment and to deal with funding shortfalls in an
equitable, timely, open, understandable, and cost-effective matter. To accomplish these
objectives, the Committee has developed a set of recommendations for a process whereby
stakeholders are informed of, and to the greatest extent feasible, participate in important
decisions that will affect the scope and schedule (i.e., pace) of work to be performed at
federal facilities. The recommendations in this chapter focus more strongly than those in the
1993 Interim Report on building consensus at the local facility level on cleanup priorities and
budgets at early stages of the budget process.
CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY BUILDING The recommendations in this chapter focus on
building the capacity of stakeholders to participate effectively in the federal facility cleanup
decision-making process. The recommendations address the need to build the capacity of
agencies to involve affected communities of color, indigenous peoples and residents of low-
income communities in the decision-making processes. They also address building the
capacity of local, state, and tribal governments to effectively participate in federal facility
cleanup decisions.
-------
Chapter 2
CHAPTER 2
PRINCIPLES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
Introduction
In August 1995, the Committee released fourteen principles it felt should be the basis for
making federal facility cleanup decisions and should apply to all persons and institutions
involved in this process. The Committee offers further clarification and elaboration of its
fourteen principles for environmental cleanup of federal facilities in this chapter. The
Committee offers the principles as a foundation for its specific recommendations stated in the
subsequent chapters of this report. The principles are designed to be complementary of one
another. They are listed here in an order that strengthens their reinforcing nature rather than
in an order of priority.
The Principles
1. Nature of the Obligation—The federal government has caused or permitted
environmental contamination. Therefore, it has not only a legal, but an ethical and
moral obligation to clean up that contamination in a manner that, at a minimum,
protects human health and the environment and minimizes burdens on future
generations. In many instances, this environmental contamination has contributed to
the degradation of human health, the environment, and economic vitality in local
communities. The federal government must not only comply with the law; it should
strive to be a leader in the field of environmental cleanup, which includes addressing
public health concerns, ecological restoration, and waste management.
The federal government's duty to clean up environmental contamination at federal facilities
rests on widely shared moral and ethical values. These values form the basis for the legal
requirements in statutes, regulations, treaties, and other governmental acts and agreements.
In developing principles guiding the cleanup of federal facilities, the Committee felt it was
important to go beyond the reliance on current legal structures; it was necessary to affirm the
shared moral and ethical beliefs that provide the foundation both for our society's legal
framework and for the Committee's recommendations.
First, governments have an obligation to protect the general welfare, including public health
and safety. A government's legitimacy rests on providing security which would otherwise be
lacking in its absence. Pollution threatening public health and the environment creates an
-------
FFERDC Final Report
obligation for the federal government to ensure threats are addressed. The federal duty to act
is heightened when the threat is a result of activities at or associated with a federal facility.
The federal government also has a stewardship responsibility to protect the lands that it owns
or manages on behalf of the nation. Such stewardship means short and long term
management of federal facilities to protect natural resources. The federal government is
given such land in trust on behalf of the nation, and where threats to the environment exist
on federal land or are posed by federal activities, the contamination should be addressed.
Stewardship also means protecting the land for future generations. Delaying the
environmental cleanup at federal facilities passes on an environmental debt to future
generations that threatens their security. The federal government must be responsible for the
consequences of its actions, particularly when the threats of those actions extend into the
future. It would be unethical to pass problems onto our children if we can reasonably
resolve those problems today.
The cleanup of federal facilities raises an issue of fairness with regard to the cleanup of
private property. The federal government must live up to the same environmental standards
it requires of the private sector. Since the federal government requires cleanup of
environmental contamination, it would diminish the moral authority of the federal
government not to be bound by the same laws and cleanup requirements.
Finally, the federal government bears an ethical burden on behalf of the communities that
host federal facilities. Some of the most significant contamination is at facilities that
contributed to the national security during World War II and the Cold War period that
followed. Activities such as weapons production and testing were characterized by secrecy
and urgency. As a result, communities made sacrifices they were not even aware of at the
time. These communities served the nation and cannot be ignored now. The powers of the
federal government must be used to remedy these past actions. The obligation to the
communities is especially important where the government closes the facilities, potentially
creating economic hardship in addition to whatever environmental impacts have been imposed
on the community.
2. Sustained Commitment to Environmental Cleanup—The federal government must
make a sustained commitment to completing environmental cleanups at its facilities at a
reasonable and defensible pace that is protective of human health and the environment
and allows closing federal facilities to return to economic use as promptly as possible.
The federal government should meet its obligations by making a sustained commitment to a
credible program of environmental cleanup. A sustained commitment can be measured by an
unwavering effort to fund and efficiently manage programs reducing human health risks and
restore damaged environments.
10
-------
Chapter 2
The Committee recognizes that many of the risks posed by federal facility contamination are
long-term risks. Substantial fiscal impacts may be associated with trying to achieve
permanent cleanup goals in the short-term. Thus, the Committee agrees it may be necessary
to take time to complete the job, provided containment, isolation and life cycle costs are
properly considered.
In instances where a technological solution has not emerged, a sustained commitment can be
measured by the ability to achieve quickly interim containment measures that are protective
of human health and the environment and, at the very least, prevent a problem from
developing, getting worse, or increasing future costs. The commitment is also measured by
programs that include significant resources devoted to technology research and development
aimed at finding long-term solutions.
A sustained commitment is necessary to build and maintain partnerships among the agencies
that caused or are responsible for cleaning up the contamination, regulators responsible for
overseeing the cleanup, and affected communities. In the absence of a sustained
commitment, regulators and communities may believe they have no choice but to insist upon
expensive remedies now, instead of interim remedies, monitoring with contingency plans,
and focus on developing new technologies.
A sustained commitment is contrasted with the boom/bust inefficiencies resulting from major
swings in the rate of expenditures for cleanup obligations (e.g., layoffs and rehiring of
workers, inability to complete jobs that have already begun, need for ongoing maintenance of
facilities or buildings that could be decommissioned after being cleaned up).
3. Environmental Justice 4—The federal government has an obligation to make special
efforts to reduce the adverse impacts of environmental contamination related to federal
facility activities on affected communities that have historically lacked economic and
political power, adequate health services, and other resources.
For many communities of color, indigenous peoples, and low-income communities, federal
facilities and their environmental impacts present additional burdens on communities
struggling for social, economic, and political viability. Therefore, in order to achieve
environmental justice, efforts should be made to identify and address adverse human health
or environmental effects from federal facility contamination on communities of color and
low-income communities.
At the core of an environmental justice perspective is the recognition of the
interconnectedness of the environment to the overall economic, social, human, and cultural
4See Box 27 for a definition of "environmental justice" and information regarding Executive Order 12898.
11
-------
FFERDC Final Report
health of a community. To this end, cleanup in these communities is fundamental to
addressing a broader set of community needs.
4. Consistency of Treatment Between Federal Facilities and Private Sites—Federal
facilities should be treated in a manner that is consistent with private sector sites,
especially in terms of the application of cleanup standards.
Many environmental contamination problems found at federal facilities are similar to private
sector sites, with the notable exception of some of the technical problems being faced at
former nuclear weapons production facilities. Although federal facilities are similar in many
respects to private sector sites, it is important to recognize that no company has Congress,
the President, or the Office of Management and Budget determining the appropriate level of
funding for its cleanup activities as well as the requirements for conducting cleanups.
Although this creates a unique situation, in that the federal government can change the laws,
it does not mean that the federal government and its facilities are above the law. Federal
facilities should be subject to the same treatment and cleanup standards for similar situations
as private sector sites. In other words, cleanup standards should be neither lower nor higher
at federal facilities than at private sector sites.
The federal government should take federal cleanup and compliance responsibilities seriously
(e.g., by not lowering standards for federal facilities), or the worst possible signal will be
sent to the private sector and local and state governments facing similar cleanup
responsibilities. It would be tantamount to the federal government declaring, "Do as I say,
not as I do."
5. Cleanup Contracting—Federal facility environmental cleanup contracts should be
managed as efficiently as possible by using contract mechanisms that specify, measure,
and reward desired outcomes and efficiencies rather than simply reimburse for effort or
pay for an end product. Federal agencies should strive to ensure that cleanup contracts
and employment opportunities benefit local communities, particularly those that are
lacking economic resources and have been disadvantaged by contamination.
Contractors and agencies responsible for cleanup should work in partnership with local
communities to achieve cleanup goals.
More efficient approaches to cleanup and to the contracting and funding arrangements used
by the federal government for conducting environmental cleanup, in particular, are needed.
Given the significant role that contractors play in federal facility cleanups for some agencies,
especially in developing proposals for specific cleanup activities, agencies should, whenever
and wherever possible, provide adequate resources to improve management oversight of
contracts and reform contracts so they provide incentives for efficient, safe, and cost
effective approaches to cleanup. So far as permitted by federal acquisition law and policy,
12
-------
Chapter 2
the government must track key measures of past performance and use past performance in
the selection of future contractors.
Of the various contracting mechanisms available, contracts that specify, measure, and reward
desired outcomes and efficiencies are preferable to those that simply reimburse for effort or
pay for an end product. Contract language should provide clear incentives to complete
cleanup projects early and under budget and to use innovative technology.
In striving to ensure that cleanup contracts and employment opportunities benefit local
communities, especially those that are lacking economic resources and have been
disadvantaged by the contamination, contractors and federal agencies responsible for cleanup
should consider working in partnership with local communities to achieve cleanup goals.
Such partnerships may include but are not limited to job training, career development
activities, business development and mentoring, and contract and job awards.
6. Fiscal Management—Funding mechanisms for cleanup should provide flexibility in the
timing of expenditures and ensure that cleanup activities are conducted in a manner that
is as efficient as possible.
Limitations and constraints currently placed on how the funds allocated to environmental
cleanup can be used also foster inefficiency and waste. In general, funds must be spent
within the year or years of their appropriation. Even when appropriations span several
years, as with the DOD's Base Realignment and Closure Account, or when appropriations
are made on a "no year" basis (i.e., they are available until expended), as is the case with
the DOE's environmental management appropriations, agencies are pressured to "use it or
lose it." In addition, agencies are pressured to expend "end-of-the-year" money in order to
avoid receiving less funds in the next cycle. Agency staff therefore sometimes feel an
urgency to spend all appropriated money. As a result, agencies and others, including
Congress, tend to measure performance by obligation rates rather than cleanup results. This
results in putting funds "on contract" simply to create favorable obligation rates. Contractors
then may produce bids to match allocated funds, which may result in a higher use of labor
and material than is absolutely necessary to complete the project.
Cleanup differs from other agency programs in at least two key ways. First, for major sites
it is almost impossible to know the full or precise extent of requirements at the time budgets
are built, since investigation and remediation activities frequently result in additional
knowledge that often significantly affects the course and timing of future activities. Second,
since regulators and the public are consulted at each step in the process, timetables are
subject to continued but legitimate revision based on input received. Consequently, when
pressured to obligate funds when high-priority projects are not quite ready for action,
departments fund lower-priority activities or face funding cutbacks. To promote sound
13
-------
FFERDC Final Report
management, funding schemes for cleanup should recognize the need for flexibility in both
the quantity and timing of actual expenditures.
7. Interdependent Decision-Making Roles and Responsibilities—Numerous institutions
and people play very distinct and important roles in the decision-making process for
federal facility cleanups. These include facility level managers, national program
managers, financial officers, and cabinet officials within the agencies responsible for
conducting the cleanup; federal, state and tribal regulators; tribes as sovereign nations;
local governments; local, state, tribal, and federal health officials; public stakeholders;
and the President, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress. These roles are
highly interdependent, reflecting both the site-specific and national dimensions of the
federal facility environmental cleanup problem. The decision-making process must
ensure that all of these roles are preserved and balanced if our nation is to complete the
mission of cleaning up federal facilities in an efficient, equitable, and timely manner.
The Committee believes it is necessary to recognize that federal facility cleanups involve
several important and distinguishable, yet interdependent, decision-making roles that reflect
both the site-specific and national dimensions of the problem. In many instances, they can
be characterized as shared decision-making roles. In this section the Committee outlines its
view of the appropriate role that we believe all key stakeholders should play.
Facility level managers need to exercise judgments about the relative priority and timing of
cleanup activities at the facility level, but it must be recognized that they cannot do so in a
completely independent fashion. In exercising such judgments, their primary concern should
be to develop and maintain a credible, cost efficient environmental program aimed at
completing cleanups at a reasonable and defensible pace. In particular, prior to completing
negotiations on enforceable agreements with federal, state and tribal regulators, facility
managers must be confident that the commitments they are entering into are implementable
and are likely to achieve the desired goals and contribute significantly to the cleanup effort.
Second, it should be acknowledged that the level of resources made available to facility
managers is largely, although not completely, beyond their control. Nevertheless, facility
managers have the primary responsibility, consistent with the requirements of Executive
Order 120885, to advance and advocate proposals within their department and with other key
decision makers and stakeholders, about what constitutes a reasonable, credible and legally
compliant environmental cleanup program at the facility for which they are responsible.
National program managers from within the federal agencies responsible for conducting
cleanups have at least three important roles. First, prior to signing or approving enforceable
5Executive Order 12088, among other requirements, requires federal agency department heads to submit
budget requests to the President that will allow them to meet their legally mandated pollution control
requirements, including cleanup.
14
-------
Chapter 2
agreements with federal, state and tribal regulators, national program managers must
carefully consider the impacts of each of the agreements on their program from a national
perspective. They have the primary responsibility for ensuring that the cumulative
commitments in facility level agreements are manageable from a programmatic perspective
that includes the budgetary aspects of national programs.
Second, after signing or approving enforceable agreements, as with facility level managers '
and consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 12088, national program managers
are responsible for advancing funding proposals that will ensure their agencies can meet their
obligations and commitments. National program managers should advocate these proposals
both within the Executive Branch and with other stakeholders. However, the Committee
acknowledges that although national program managers have more influence over the level of
resources that are made available to accomplish their mission compared to facility level
managers, such decisions are still not completely within their control.
As discussed in Chapter 5, national program managers play an important role in addressing
the tension existing between the requirements of Executive Order 12088 to submit budget
requests allowing their agencies to meet their legal obligations and the requirement to submit
funding requests within the limits of specified budget targets.
Third, after appropriations are made by Congress, national program managers are
responsible for apportioning funding to intermediate organizational levels where appropriate
(e.g., military commands), and facilities within their program in a manner that sustains the
protection of human health and the environment. The allocation for cleanup should be made
in a manner consistent with the approaches recommended in Chapter 5.
Agency Financial Managers and Comptrollers play an important role in some agencies in
balancing the mission and other requirements of their agency with the resources available. In
particular, financial managers wield great influence, and in many cases, the authority to
determine the level of resources to be applied to agency cleanup programs. These financial
managers are usually not very visible to stakeholders. In many cases, such managers believe
that if their agency's primary mission requirements exceed the current and projected
resources available, it is their job to determine and recommend to agency heads which
requirements should not be funded. In addition, financial managers have become
understandably alarmed at the continued growth of cleanup requirements as a percentage of
agency budgets. Nonetheless, it should be recognized that cleanup programs are somewhat
different from many other programs in that such requirements are often externally driven and
therefore a top down priority system does not sufficiently account for such requirements. It
is understood that risk assessments or relative risk evaluations are only one factor in building
agency budgets for cleanup projects. Thus, most but not all projects funded first will be of
high priority.
15
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Cabinet-level officials at federal agencies responsible for conducting cleanups, consistent
with the requirements of Executive Order 12088, are responsible for submitting funding
requests that will permit their departments to meet the legally binding commitments they
have entered into through negotiated agreements or are otherwise required by statutes and
treaties. These officials should advocate proposals that constitute a credible environmental
cleanup program aimed at completing the cleanup mission at a defensible and reasonable pace
while protecting human health and the environment.
Similarly to national program managers, the Committee recognizes that cabinet officials are
increasingly faced with the tension between the requirements of Executive Order 12088 and
the requirement to submit funding requests within the limits of specified budget targets. The
Committee agrees that Cabinet level officials have a critical role to play in attempting to
balance federal facility cleanup obligations with other important societal needs and
obligations that fall within their departmental programmatic purview. However, such
balancing must always consider the nature of the federal facility environmental cleanup
obligations in terms of its legal basis, ethical dimensions, and the effect of federal facility
priority-setting decisions may have on cleanup decisions taking place in the private sector.
The President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) play a role that is
separate and distinct from the roles that the various agencies of the federal government play
as either responsible parties or as regulators. The principal feature of this role is to ensure
that the nation as a whole maintains a sustained commitment to a credible program aimed at
achieving cleanup objectives over a reasonable period of time and in a manner that is
protective of human health and the environment. In so doing, the President and OMB play a
critical role in attempting to balance federal facility cleanup needs and obligations with other
important societal needs and obligations. Such balancing must always consider the nature of
the federal facility cleanup obligations, in both their legal and ethical dimensions, as well as
the impact of federal facility priority-setting decisions on cleanup activities taking place in the
private sector. Both the President and OMB play essential roles in recognizing that federal
facilities are subject to the same laws and regulations as private sector sites. Finally, in
keeping with the spirit of executive orders applying to the departments of the Executive
Branch, the President and OMB play perhaps the most essential role in ensuring that
department-specific budgets and budget targets are set in a manner that allows departments to
meet the legally binding commitments they have entered into through negotiated agreements
or are otherwise required by statutes and treaties and sufficient to sustain a reasonable and
defensible pace of cleanups that is protective of human health and the environment.
Congress, similar to the President, plays a critical role in ensuring the nation as a whole
maintains a sustained commitment to a credible environmental program aimed at achieving
federal facility cleanup objectives over a reasonable period of time and in a manner that is
protective of human health and the environment. This role includes the oversight
responsibilities Congress has in monitoring the performance of federal agencies. In addition,
16
-------
Chapter 2
in authorizing and appropriating agency budgets, Congress must also balance federal facility
environmental cleanup needs and obligations with other important societal needs and
obligations. In so doing, Congress must also recognize the critical importance of treating
federal facilities in a manner that is consistent with how private sector sites are treated,
especially as it relates to any changes contemplated in the laws that define the decision-
making authorities of other levels of government, as well as the consistent application of
cleanup standards.
State, tribal6, and federal regulators need to exercise judgement about whether the federal
cleanup actions being proposed or taken to address site-specific problems are protective of
human health and the environment and result in a reasonable pace of progress toward
completing the overall goal of cleaning up the site. Regulators have primary responsibility
for setting cleanup standards, concurring with or selecting remedial actions, and determining
whether the cleanup effort is proceeding at a pace protective of human health and the
environment. In determining the appropriate pace of cleanup, regulators should consider the
risk plus priority-setting factors discussed in Chapter 5. Regulators also have an obligation
to work together with other regulators and regulated agencies to minimize imposing
differing, inconsistent, or conflicting requirements and to encourage efficient and cost
effective cleanups. Regulators should participate proactively in the community involvement
process to improve the overall federal facility cleanup program. In addition, regulators have
an important role in exercising their enforcement authorities.
Tribal governments, in addition to their possible role as regulators, have a distinct decision-
making role to play as that is derived from rights that are specified in treaties with the U.S.
Government. In some instances, these treaty rights may result in legally binding obligations
on the part of the U.S. Government that must be accounted for during the conduct of federal
facility cleanup activities. Typically these interests will pertain to hunting, fishing, and
religious freedom rights on ceded lands upon which there exists a federal facility. Tribes
may also have a role that is derived from the rights and privileges that are specified in such
statutes as the Historic Preservation Act, the Antiquities Act, the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act, and other aspects of the trust relationship between tribes and the U.S.
Government. This may include the rights and privileges of individual Americans, including
urban Indians, indigenous peoples, and members of unrecognized tribes. With regard to
advisory boards, The Committee believes that these government-to-government relationships
are consistent with and should encourage participation of Tribes in advisory boards, and
recognizes the right of each Tribe to make its own determination on this matter.
6 Tribal regulatory authority stems both from inherent tribal sovereignty as it relates to environmental
contamination caused by the federal government on affected tribal lands and in some instances, through
delegation of federal regulatory programs to tribes.
17
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Local governments, including counties, cities, towns, special assessment districts, municipal
utility districts (such as water and sewage), have at least three important roles to play in the
context of federal facility environmental restoration. The first is similar to federal, state and
tribal regulators in so far as local governments have a general obligation to protect the
health, safety and welfare of their citizens as well as the environment where they live. One
of the primary manifestations of this role is the fact that local governments very often serve
as first responders in emergency response situations. The second role is as an institution of
government that has historically had primary responsibility for land use determinations for
lands within their jurisdiction. Therefore, in instances where federal land is transferred to a
non-tribal local community, local governments are usually the institutional authority that will
determine and regulate the land use. Third, local governments have a general responsibility
to ensure the overall economic and social well being of their citizens. The participation of
local governments in cleanup decision-making processes should be accommodated through
direct inter-governmental consultations, exercise of local regulatory authority such as land
use planning, and through participation with and involvement in advisory boards. Consistent
with Principle 11, local government authority for land use decisions should be exercised
independently of cleanup standards.
Because a facility may affect several local governments, expectations for their role in the
cleanup decision-making processes should be discussed at the facility level among the
regulated agency, the regulating agencies, local government officials and public stakeholders,
consistent with the recommendations in Chapter 6.
Local, state, tribal, and federal health officials need to evaluate, make recommendations,
and where necessary take appropriate actions to respond to the human health impacts of past,
present, and potential future releases of contaminants. These officials should recognize that,
in some instances, the environmental/ecological impact of contaminants may be the
determining factor in cleanup actions.
Public stakeholders have a central and independent role to play at the core of the decision-
making process. This role should be addressed by the establishment of such mechanisms as
advisory boards, as well as by other effective and meaningful approaches to community
involvement. While public stakeholders play many important roles, it should be explicitly
stated that such stakeholders must play an important role in remedy selection and overall
priority setting of cleanup activities. It is important to ensure, not merely allow, meaningful
participation by affected people and communities of color and other historically
disempowered stakeholders. Indigenous peoples, urban Indians, grass roots tribal
organizations and unrecognized tribes who are affected by federal facility contamination have
an important role to play as public stakeholders that is independent from Tribal governments
in that the federal government's trust obligations extends to individual members of tribes and
not just the Tribal government.
18
-------
Chapter 2
8. The Role of Negotiated Cleanup Agreements—Negotiated cleanup agreements in many
instances play a critical role both in setting priorities at a facility and providing a means
to balance the respective interdependent roles and responsibilities in federal facilities
cleanup decision making.
Federal facility cleanup is changing from an adversarial situation riddled with mistrust that
slowed, if not paralyzed, cleanup progress, to a dynamic arrangement in which different
stakeholders work together to achieve common goals. The Committee believes that
negotiated cleanup agreements can and should continue to play an important role in this shift
and thereby increase consideration of the concerns of both local and national level
stakeholders.
Recently, reports have been issued criticizing the role of negotiated agreements in cleaning
up federal facilities. These criticisms have asserted that they are "unwieldy" and frequently
contain "unrealistic schedules" with cleanup milestones extending years or decades into the
future. The Committee recognizes that developing an integrated cleanup plan for a huge
facility like the DOE's Hanford facility is a monumental task. Rejecting a cleanup agreement
as an approach to managing cleanup for such a facility because the agreement is "unwieldy"
does nothing to simplify the task of cleaning up the facility. While the Committee
acknowledges some agreements have worked better than others, and improvements can be
made in implementing some of the agreements, the Committee disagrees with the view that
negotiated agreements are, on the whole, unworkable. Therefore, the Committee attempts to
address criticisms of negotiated cleanup agreements and the tension between the importance
of negotiated cleanup agreements and the requirements of the federal budget process in the
recommendations on "Budget Consultation and Milestone Setting" that are found in Chapter
5. When negotiated and executed in good faith, the Committee believes negotiated
agreements can provide a good vehicle for setting cleanup priorities at individual facilities.
To achieve this goal, negotiated cleanup agreements should be developed in consideration of
risk plus other factors described in Chapter 5, including the anticipated availability of
cleanup funds. The Committee believes that these agreements typically are not and should
not be developed in an unconstrained manner.
The Committee believes that the level of external regulatory oversight of federal facility
cleanups necessary to ensure a credible and effective cleanup program will depend on the
nature and extent of environmental contamination or hazard at any site. In addition, federal
facilities on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) are required under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (CERCLA) to enter into "interagency agreements" setting out schedules for
cleanup. The Committee also recognizes not all federal facilities are required to enter into
such agreements in all circumstances, nor would it make sense for them to do so.
19
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Negotiated agreements can provide an effective means to integrate state and federal cleanup
authorities without resorting to expensive and lengthy litigation. Where a state's RCRA and
EPA's CERCLA regulatory authorities overlap, as they do at many federal facilities, a
negotiated agreement can provide a mechanism to coordinate those authorities to minimize
differing, inconsistent, or conflicting requirements over matters within their jurisdiction, and,
where appropriate, to identify a lead regulatory agency. As noted in Principle 13, the
Committee believes an integrated approach to cleanup can greatly improve the quality and
implementation of cleanup plans.
The very process of negotiating an agreement allows the parties to the negotiation to ensure
their concerns and priorities are raised and addressed in the agreement. For example, federal
agency negotiators can raise concerns about proposed schedules, their impact on agency
budgets, and any other concerns they may have. The Committee believes it is the
responsibility of each party to an agreement to raise and resolve such concerns prior to
signing an agreement. This includes the responsibility of the regulated agency to provide
information as fully as possible to the regulators and public stakeholders regarding budget
and out year funding availability.
The Committee believes it is the responsibility of the parties to an agreement to ensure the
schedules they negotiate are achievable and implementable before signing the agreement. In
this regard, the Committee believes the parties to a cleanup agreement should consider
several factors when negotiating cleanup schedules, such as:
a) the logical progression of work at the facility;
b) changing priorities resulting from new information;
c) regulator and federal agency resources; and
d) the likely availability of funding in any given year.
Finally, the processes and structures established in negotiated agreements offer opportunities
for meaningful public involvement in cleanup decisions (see Principle 14). These processes
can and should serve as a vehicle for reconciling competing public stakeholder values and
concerns.
9. Consideration of Human Health and Environmental Risk and Other Factors in
Federal Facility Environmental Cleanup Decision Making—Risk to human health and
the environment is an important and well established factor that should continue to be a
20
-------
Chapter 2
primary consideration in federal facility cleanup decision making, including setting
environmental cleanup priorities and milestones. However:
A) Human Health and Environmental Risk—Risk assessments and other analytical tools
used to evaluate risks to human health (including non-cancer as well as cancer health
effects) and the environment all have scientific limitations and require assumptions in
their development. As decision-aiding tools, risk assessments should only be used in a
manner that recognizes those limitations and assumptions. Moreover, risk assessments
ought not be used by any party as a basis for unilaterally setting aside legal
requirements that embody public health principles and other important societal values.
The Committee believes that a primary goal of federal facility cleanups is the protection of
human health and the environment. Given this goal, one of the principal benefits of cleanups
is the reduction of risk to human health and the environment. The Committee further
believes that risk assessments and other analytical tools that evaluate the human health and
environmental risks posed by contamination, as well as the human health and environmental
risk reduction potential of proposed cleanup actions, are useful. However, these tools all
have limitations that must be recognized in their utilization.
All Committee members acknowledge the shortcomings of risk assessments and related
analytical tools. Some Committee members feel that affected communities in general, and
low-income communities and communities of color in particular, have been adversely
affected by the use of risk assessments. For example, in some cases, exposure assessments
have not accounted for the unique dietary habits and lifestyles of native peoples and
communities of color. These Committee members believe that the scientific and technical
limitations of risk assessments are so severe that they should be used sparingly, if at all.
These Committee members believe risk assessments are so fraught with ambiguity that they
have often been misused or abused.
Furthermore, these same Committee members believe that the identification of arbitrary risk-
based human health and environmental "protection" levels (i.e., so-called "acceptable" risk
levels), which often provide the justification for undertaking risk assessments to begin with,
can be criticized on both moral and ethical grounds. These Committee members believe
when used in this manner, risk assessments tend to result in the imposition of risks to human
life on specific populations while the benefits tend to be more widespread and usually do not
accrue to the populations that are placed at risk.
Other Committee members have more faith in the utility of risk assessments when used
consistently across an agency, in a manner that recognizes their limitations and when public
stakeholders understand their proper use and function. These Committee members believe
although not perfect, risk assessments provide valuable information that can help determine
21
-------
FFERDC Final Report
both whether and when a cleanup action should be taken. These Committee members believe
that without this information, efforts to set priorities for cleanup actions would be chaotic.
Notwithstanding these differing views, all Committee members recognize risk assessments
are currently being used, and will continue to be used, in cleanup decision making. All
Committee members believe some of the more significant limitations of risk assessments
include the failure to recognize multiple and cumulative exposures or distinguish between
voluntary and involuntary risks, and man-made and natural risks. The Committee also
believes risk analysts tend to focus on the probabilities of harm, whereas affected
communities tend to focus on the nature and consequences of that harm. The outcome of
these different approaches is often disagreements about the meaning of risk assessment
results, as well as the implications of such results for public policy decisions.
The current focus on the use of risk assessments as a policy-making tool has left the
impression it is a powerful tool based on scientific evidence and good data. This is often not
the case. Risk assessments therefore often create an illusion of scientific knowledge and
certainty. The data used to produce risk assessments are often limited and, in any case, must
be subjected to interpretation. Moreover, the assumptions used are often the subject of
intense scientific debate. The manner in which risk assessments are developed,
communicated and utilized often does not consider that many individuals do not have, or are
not provided with, information about how the assumptions are developed, the quality of the
data used, and how the data and assumptions are used to produce the estimate of risk.
Risk-based cost benefit analyses, sometimes referred to as risk benefit analyses, often fail to
capture all of the possible future economic costs and benefits associated with various levels
of remediation efforts. For example, partial or inadequate remediation efforts can impose
long-term costs that are passed on to an affected community in the form of lost future
economic and social potential. This lost potential can be manifested not only in the loss of
direct development of the affected areas but in the overall perception that the community's
quality of life has been permanently compromised—thus discouraging a variety of activities
important to the vitality of communities (e.g., siting new businesses, recreation, tourism). In
addition, it is not possible to reduce all of these values to a monetary value as risk benefit
analysis requires. All stakeholders should take responsibility, through the advisory board and
other mechanisms, to ensure that costs and benefits are identified and included in the
analysis to the extent possible.
The Committee is concerned about the implication of the misapplication of risk assessments
and risk benefit analyses in federal facility cleanup decisions and the problem it could create
for the credibility of the cleanup process. All stakeholders should ensure that cleanups are
protective of human health and the environment and reflect as broad a consensus as possible
by placing risk assessment process in its proper perspective.
22
-------
Chapter 2
The Committee believes the various approaches one can take to evaluating, analyzing and
assessing human health risk and risk reduction potential are tools that can help inform
stakeholders as they make or participate in priority-setting decisions. However, the results of
risk evaluations, analyses and assessments should not themselves be considered the defacto
priorities.
When using risk assessment tools to help inform federal facility cleanup decisions, all key
decision makers (i.e., not just the national program managers of the agencies responsible for
conducting cleanups) should carefully distinguish between the following types of decisions:
• whether an environmental contamination problem poses a sufficient threat to
human health or the environment to warrant action; and, if so,
• what type of action is warranted; and
• when it should be accomplished.
All of these decisions are a form of priority setting and all of them will be based on
consideration of multiple factors. With the exception of emergency response situations, the
Committee believes direct measures and estimates of human health and environmental risk
are relatively more important in deciding whether to take action and, if so, what action
should be taken, than in the case of deciding when the action should be accomplished. In
using risk evaluation methodologies to determine the timing and sequence or, in the opposite
case, delay of cleanup activities or projects, the primary focus should be on the relative risk
reduction potential of those actions rather than the relative risk posed by the contamination.
The relative risk is more appropriate to consider when deciding whether to take action and if
so, what action.
As noted, the Committee believes the analytical tools that are currently available to evaluate
human health and environmental risk have scientific uncertainties that are often not well
understood or acknowledged by policy makers. Because of this, the Committee recommends
that all key decision makers should adhere to the following when using risk assessments:
a. There are scientific uncertainties associated with the myriad of assumptions
imbedded in these analytical tools. Moreover, it should be recognized that
there are often limitations on the availability and quality of data necessary to
make effective use of such tools. Risk assessment reports should clearly
delineate these limitations in laymen's terms as part of the analysis.
b. Stakeholders should be involved in both the analysis of risk and risk reduction
potential at the front end, including exposure assessments, as well as the risk
management and broader priority setting decisions that flow from such
23
-------
FFERDC Final Report
analyses. Such involvement should be accomplished in a way that does not
overly complicate the nature of the data and methodologies being used or the
decisions being made on the basis of these analyses. This involvement should
be encouraged to focus the effort and maximize the benefit of the study.
c. The assumptions used in conducting risk assessments should be communicated
at the front end so the results may be better understood. Overly certain or
emphatic statements concerning the results of any effort to analyze or compare
risk or risk reduction potential such as those offering unqualified numerical
precision should be avoided.
d. Risk assessments should analyze appropriate carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
effects when evaluating the human health effects resulting from expected
exposures.
If and when risk assessments are used, they should be used as a tool to help assess the risk to
diverse populations (rather than averaging risks across the general population) including:
a. communities of color and low-income communities historically subjected to
environmental, social, and economic injustice;
b. particularly susceptible sub-populations such as pregnant woman, children, the
elderly, and populations exposed to multiple hazards; and
c. risks to workers, as well as the general population.
It should be recognized that it is impossible to develop useful ordinal rankings of sites or
cleanup activities based solely on risk or risk reduction potential. At best, the Committee
believes risk assessments can be used to categorize environmental contamination problems
into broad groupings such as those that pose high, medium, or low risk. It may also be
possible to group and compare cleanup actions into those that may result in high, medium or
low risk reduction per dollar of expenditure. Further ranking of contaminated areas or
actions using risk assessments makes consideration of other important factors (described in
Principle lOb below and Chapter 5) difficult if not impossible.
The effort involved in evaluating human health and environmental risk should be tailored to
the decision or decisions at hand. Highly quantitative and technically complex risk
assessments should be avoided when less involved analytical methods will meet the need.
Such resource-intensive efforts can serve only to complicate, delay, and increase paperwork
and costs without any clear value added.
24
-------
Chapter 2
Some components of the federal government, as well as stakeholder involvement groups, are
beginning to make progress in balancing the careful consideration of risk and risk reduction
potential with other important factors. Actions to force the consideration of risk to become
the only factor in setting federal facility cleanup priorities will detract from this progress and
should be avoided. As discussed in Chapter 5, the Committee recommends that a "risk plus
other factors" approach be used to determine the sequencing and priority of cleanup
activities.
B) Other Factors—In addition to human health and environmental risk, other factors
warrant consideration in setting environmental cleanup priorities and milestones.
These factors include:
• cultural, social, and economic factors, including environmental justice
considerations;
• short-term and long-term ecological effects and environmental impacts in
general, including damage to natural resources and lost use;
• making land available for other uses;
• acceptability of the action to regulators, tribes, and public stakeholders;
• statutory requirements and legal agreements;
• life cycle costs;
• pragmatic considerations, such as the ability to execute cleanup projects in
a given year, and the feasibility of carrying out the activity in relation to
other activities at the facility;
• overall cost and effectiveness of a proposed activity; and
• actual and anticipated funding availability.
The Committee believes that fiscal constraints do not justify failing to take actions to
protect human health and environment, but may result in the need to set priorities
about what cleanup actions can occur in any given year.
As discussed further in Chapter 5, risk to human health or its corollary, protection of human
health is, at many sites, only a starting point for establishing cleanup funding priorities. The
Committee also believes that in many other instances protection of the environment is the
appropriate starting point for establishing cleanup funding priorities. Furthermore, in other
cases, protection of human health and the environment is the appropriate starting point for
establishing funding priorities for cleanup. The Committee strongly recommends that in
those instances where protection of the environment is not used as a starting point for
establishing cleanup funding priorities, it should be considered as one of the factors that are
listed below.
Thus, while the Committee believes the comparison of human health and environmental risk
and risk reduction potential is appropriate in setting priorities for federal facility cleanups,
25
-------
FFERDC Final Report
they are not the only factors, and risk must be viewed in the context of other social values,
environmental goals, and economic benefits. Some of the other factors that should be
considered in setting priorities for federal facility environmental cleanup include, but are not
limited to:
a) cultural, social, and economic factors, including environmental justice
considerations;
b) potential or future use of the facility, its effect on the local communities'
economy, vitality, livability and environmental quality;
c) the ecological impacts of the contamination and the proposed action to address
it (in those instances where protection of the environment is not used as the
primary basis for establishing cleanup funding priorities as further explained in
Chapter 5);
d) intrinsic and future value of affected resources (e.g., ground water and
fisheries);
e) pragmatic considerations such as availability and continuity of skilled workers,
labs, and cleanup contractors to complete the activity or the feasibility of
carrying out the activity in relation to other activities at the facility (i.e.,
capacity and work flow logic), or both;
f) the overall cost and cost effectiveness of a proposed activity and especially the
relative risk reduction value obtained by the proposed expenditure;
g) making land available for other uses, recognizing land uses may change over
time;
h) the importance of reducing infrastructure costs (e.g., $300 million is spent
each year to monitor tanks at Hanford and $130 million is spent each year at
Rocky Flats to safeguard special nuclear material);
i) the availability of new or innovative technologies that might accelerate or
improve the ability to achieve a permanent remedy;
j) Native American treaties, statutory rights (e.g., American Indian Religious
Freedom Act), and trust responsibilities;
k) regulatory requirements and the acceptability of the proposed action to
regulators and other stakeholders;
26
-------
Chapter 2
1) supporting accomplishment of other high priority agency objectives;
m) life-cycle costs; and
n) actual and anticipated funding levels, as explained in Chapter 5.
These, as well as other factors that emerge should be considered by all key decision makers.
This may occur concurrently with discovery of site-specific information and the recognition
of stakeholder viewpoints. Care should be taken to ensure that the factors to be used are
identified in advance of the need to make priority-setting decisions at the site-specific and
national levels. Efforts to develop weights for each of these factors or to convert the
priority-setting decision-making process into an overly quantitatively driven process should
be avoided. Rather, the Committee believes we as a nation should find ways to improve
participation in the federal facility priority-setting decision-making process such that the
decisions made reflect as broad a consensus as possible as to the appropriate path forward.
As noted above, negotiated agreements and meaningful stakeholder involvement can, and
should continue to play an important role in carefully balancing the respective roles,
responsibilities, needs and interests of key decision makers and public stakeholders,
especially as it relates to giving due consideration to all relevant decision-making factors.
10. The Importance of Pollution Prevention and Pollution Control Activities—Effective
pollution prevention and pollution control activities are essential to prevent future
environmental cleanup problems. Therefore, in carrying out their mission, federal
agencies should view such activities as a cost of doing business and fully comply with
environmental laws and regulations that are designed to accomplish these objectives.
The cost of cleanup is due, in part, to the historic lack of effective pollution controls prior to
the passage of environmental laws during the last two or three decades and agencies' failure
to comply with the pollution prevention and pollution control provisions of environmental
laws such as RCRA, the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Atomic
Energy Act. For this reason, the Committee believes that pollution prevention and pollution
control measures should always be considered a cost of doing business, in contrast to cleanup
measures, that the Committee acknowledges may sometimes need to be prioritized due to
funding constraints. This principle is not intended to preclude or supersede the need for an
integrated, systematic approach to setting priorities for cleanup actions. A systematic
approach (as described more fully in Principle 13) is useful to determining appropriate time
frames for cleanup and waste management activities.
The Committee recognizes that the line between pollution prevention and pollution control
and cleanup measures may not always be clearly drawn. However, the following are
examples of pollution prevention and pollution control measures that should be considered
costs of doing business and funded together with the underlying activity. Persons who
27
-------
FFERDC Final Report
generate hazardous waste are required to comply with a set of regulations designed to
minimize risks to communities, workers, and the environment. The regulations apply from
the time the waste is generated, through its storage, treatment, and ultimate disposal. The
pollution prevention and pollution control measures required under these regulations include
such requirements as: a) training of workers who have to handle the wastes in their proper
management; b) preparation, implementation and training related to a contingency plan
governing what to do in case of an accident; c) periodic inspections; and d) more specific
management practices related to the particular form of waste handling (e.g., the manager of a
hazardous waste container is required to keep a container closed, except when waste is being
added to or removed from the container).
The Committee acknowledges that not all pollution prevention and pollution control activities
are legally required. Nevertheless, because pollution prevention actions are generally very
cost-effective means of protecting human health and the environment, the Committee strongly
supports implementation of pollution prevention actions.
To the extent that funding can be isolated from other decision-making factors in determining
the appropriate tuning of an activity, funding should not be a reason to delay or avoid
undertaking a preventative pollution control action. Rather, funding of preventative pollution
control activities should be viewed as a cost of doing business and funded in conjunction with
the activity causing the pollution.
11. The Role of Future Land Use Determinations in Making Cleanup Decisions—
Reasonably anticipated future land uses should be considered when making cleanup
decisions for federal facilities, provided that at the time of any land transfer there are
adequate safeguards to protect land holders, those who will receive or lease the land,
and surrounding communities. The communities that are affected by federal facility
cleanups, along with their local governing bodies and affected Indian Tribes, should be
given a significant role in determining reasonably anticipated future use of federal
property that is expected to be transferred, and in how future use determinations will be
used in making cleanup decisions.
The future use of land is currently considered as a factor in making cleanup decisions under
federal law as well as many state laws. Future land use has relevance to the issue of funding
and priority setting for federal facility cleanups in that many view the possibility of cleanup
based on future uses more restrictive than residential use (e.g., industrial use) may result in
less costly remedies, at least in the short-term.
Although the Committee views future land use as an appropriate factor in making cleanup
decisions and setting priorities, decisions about future use are separate from decisions about
cleanup. These decisions are often made by different bodies and although there clearly is,
28
-------
Chapter 2
and should be a relationship between these decisions, it does not follow that a future use
decision should automatically determine the cleanup remedy.
To meet the needs of impacted communities and budget-conscious federal agencies, the
conditions under which future use should be considered need to be clarified. In particular,
the Committee recommends that:
a) Reasonably anticipated future use, not just current or immediately anticipated
use, should be considered in cleanup decisions.
b) For properties being transferred from federal ownership, future use
determinations should be made by the state, tribal, or local authorities that will
have jurisdiction over the land to be transferred, with appropriate forms of
stakeholder involvement. The federal government should provide stakeholders
with all relevant information on cleanup alternatives, including implications of
land use choices and corresponding cleanup levels and remedies. Regulated
agencies should remain neutral with respect to appropriate land use choices.
c) When property is transferred from federal ownership, the federal agency
should, after timely and reasonable investigation, fully disclose all hazards
known or suspected to be present on the property.
d) Cleanup for property remaining in federal ownership should consider the
anticipated federal use of the property and the need to continue the cleanup
process even if the property is transferred from one federal agency to another
federal agency. If such property is subsequently transferred from federal
ownership, the cleanup decision should be re-evaluated in light of the land use
selected by the state, tribal, or local authorities that have jurisdiction over the
land to be transferred.
e) For property expected to be transferred, at the tune of transfer the transferring
agency should fully disclose who will be financially responsible if the land use
changes to one that would require additional cleanup. Furthermore, financial
responsibility should be addressed explicitly in the negotiation of the transfer
agreement.
f) When making cleanup decisions for properties remaining in federal ownership,
cleanup advisory boards, local planning and reuse authorities, and the public
stakeholders should be consulted about reasonable anticipated future use
assumptions.
29
-------
FFERDC Final Report
g) If there is a danger that contaminants and other hazards will migrate to
adjacent lands, the migration should be contained or the source eliminated. If
such migration has already occurred, the contamination should be addressed in
accordance with the risk plus other factors priority-setting process in Chapter
5.
h) Where appropriate, the designated groundwater use should have a greater
impact on cleanup standard decisions than the future use of the facility.
i) In circumstances where reasonably anticipated future use includes mixed uses
such as child care centers, medical facilities, and parks mixed with industrial
or office areas, the implications for all uses should be evaluated when making
cleanup decisions.
j) The cost and delay associated with determining and evaluating the impact of
future use may, in some cases, mean that selecting the most stringent cleanup
standard or remedy (e.g., one based on a unrestricted use) is the most cost
effective and least time consuming approach to moving forward with the
cleanup process when compared to the marginal savings that may result from
using a less stringent cleanup standard or remedy. In other cases, this will not
be true.
k) Land not cleaned up to standards permitting unrestricted use should be
subjected to appropriate enforceable institutional controls (e.g., deed
restrictions, zoning, physical controls, and/or monitoring for the life of the
hazard). Such controls are necessary not only to protect human health and the
environment, but also to preserve the integrity of the cleanup remedy. The
cost of such monitoring and controls should be considered in evaluating the
savings achieved by implementing the less stringent cleanup standard. The
significant problems and costs posed by maintaining institutional controls over
the extremely long life of contaminants such as certain radionuclides merit
serious consideration in the decision on what action to take.
1) In those limited instances where there are long-term, persistent, and high-level
risks to human health and the environment, and the technological capability
does not yet exist to permanently remove those risks, or where the cost of the
technology that would permit unrestricted use or even some limited uses is
extraordinarily high, land use restrictions may allow for interim actions that
are protective of human health and the environment. However, the responsible
federal agency, with the involvement of regulatory authorities and other
stakeholders, should commit to undertake pilot testing, technology
demonstration, or research and development aimed at establishing the
30
-------
Chapter 2
technological capability to address the problem. Furthermore, it must be
recognized that such actions are indeed interim actions and do not absolve the
responsible agency from taking a final action.
Building on Principle 1, some Committee members believe that additional recommendations
are necessary to achieve the principle of minimizing burdens on future generations.
Specifically, some Committee members believe that cleanups should be designed to ensure
that the treatment, disposal and isolation of the contamination itself, as well as the cleanup
wastes and all other wastes from the facility, occur in such manner that the
contamination/wastes will not pose a threat to human health and the environment within a
specified period of time (e.g., 100 - 500 years), thereby allowing for unrestricted use of
previously contaminated lands and disposal sites within the specified period. Other
Committee members believe that in most cases existing laws and regulations are adequate to
achieve the principle of minimizing burdens on future generations and/or that unrestricted use
is not an appropriate goal in some cases. Still other Committee members believe that while
the above views represent a laudable goal, it is impracticable in some cases. In particular the
characteristics of the waste (e.g., half-lives of thousands of years), the cost and cost
effectiveness of current technologies, and/or political realities (e.g., disposal facility siting
disputes) will make it difficult if not impossible to achieve unrestricted use of contaminated
lands or disposal sites within a specified period such as 100 - 500 years.
12. The Role of Studies in the Cleanup Process—The identification and characterization
of contamination and the evaluation of health impacts on human populations are
essential parts of the cleanup process. Efforts to streamline the cleanup process should
focus on reducing paperwork and moving away from adversarial relations toward
cooperation, not the arbitrary capping of funding for studies.
There is a great deal of frustration across the country over the slow pace of cleanup at non-
federal as well as federal facilities. Historically, in too many instances regulated agencies
and regulators have prepared and reviewed documents with a view toward building a
potential legal case rather than promoting timely cleanup. The Committee supports efforts to
eliminate or reduce unneeded paperwork, accelerate document reviews, and promote frequent
consultation among the parties.
Arbitrary funding limits on study, however, could actually delay cleanup and undermine
priority setting. Many facilities have not yet been fully surveyed or had their sites
characterized. Limits on study could prevent contamination at those facilities from even
being recognized. Funding limitations also prevent the conduct of human health studies
necessary to inform cleanup decisions.
At large, complex hazardous waste sites—often the very sites that are considered a high
priority by all stakeholders—caps on funding for study may prevent completion of work
31
-------
FFERDC Final Report
necessary to move forward with the "moving of dirt" or other treatment. For example, in
remediating groundwater contamination, extraction wells cannot be sunk effectively, or the
determination that "pump and treat" is an appropriate remedy cannot be made, without first
characterizing where contamination exists in the ground water.
If arbitrary limits are placed on study, agencies would be pressured to move forward with
activity at low priority sites that require less study rather than complete much more complex
projects at sites that pose very serious, but more complex threats to public health and the
environment. The Committee believes that increased cooperation between all stakeholders is
necessary to better focus and use cleanup studies that result in action rather than a
justification for more study.
13. The Need for a Systematic Approach to Decision Making and Priority Setting
—Federal facility priority-setting decisions should be made in a manner that recognizes
their interconnectedness to other environmental problems.
In addition to the consideration of multiple factors when setting federal facility cleanup
priorities, it is often very important to consider priority-setting decisions from a systems -
oriented perspective. This means holistic and systematic methods should be applied in
deciding cleanup actions and other related federal actions intended to reflect public
stakeholder values. Such methods must consider the different values of public stakeholders
and resolve conflicts in a fair and equitable manner.
A systems-oriented perspective is especially pertinent in the context of cleanup at DOE's
former nuclear weapons production facilities. At such facilities it is critically important to
consider the interrelationships between issues such as safeguarding special nuclear materials;
treatment, storage and disposal of all the various forms of waste found at such sites;
restoration and remediation of contaminated environmental media; and technology research
and development. None of these issues should be considered in isolation of the other. The
same can be said of federal facility sites and programs managed by agencies other than DOE,
on perhaps a smaller and less technically complex scale.
14. Stakeholder Involvement—Public stakeholders and local governments historically
have not been involved adequately in the federal facility cleanup decision making and
priority-setting process. Agencies responsible for conducting and overseeing cleanup
and related public health activities must take steps to address this problem, with the
overall goal of ensuring that federal facility cleanup decisions and priorities reflect a
broad spectrum of stakeholder input from affected communities including indigenous
peoples, low-income communities, and people of color. Like pollution prevention and
pollution control measures, meaningful stakeholder involvement has in many instances
resulted in significant cleanup cost reductions. It should therefore not only be
32
-------
Chapter 2
considered as a cost of doing business but as a potential means of efficiently determining
and achieving acceptable cleanup goals.
As defined by the Committee, "stakeholders" are those affected by or who otherwise have an
interest or "stake" in or the ability to influence the outcome of, in this case, federal facility
environmental cleanup decisions. Using this definition, all of the interdependent decision
makers described above in Principle 7, as well as those affected by their decisions, can be
considered stakeholders—the public, regulators, and the regulated agencies.
In the remainder of this section, however, the Committee focuses on those individuals and
groups who do not have a formal or statutorily defined decision-making role. It was these
public stakeholders that were the primary focus of the Committee's recommendations
regarding the establishment of advisory boards, as well as other improvements to community
involvement processes. In addition, local government involvement is usually not formally or
statutorily defined, and it should be considered as a part of stakeholder involvement.
Meaningful local government involvement, particularly the involvement of officials from
affected communities, is essential given that the future of these communities is integrally
linked to the outcome of cleanup decisions.
The Committee believes continued improvements aimed at even more meaningful and
effective public stakeholder involvement will provide a solid foundation for finding a credible
and reasonable path forward. Public stakeholders can and should continue to play a critical
role in providing input on:
• the consideration of risk and risk reduction potential in relation to other
relevant priority-setting factors and in determining what those factors are;
• the determination and consideration of reasonably anticipated future site use as
it relates to cleanup standards and remedy selection;
• how to keep the cost of accomplishing the cleanup mission as low as is
reasonably possible;
• the sequencing of cleanup activities;
• the priorities that should be included as milestones in negotiated agreements;
and
• what constitutes a credible environmental cleanup program, particularly at a
facility level, that is protective of human health and the environment and
achieves satisfactory progress in site cleanup over a reasonable period of tune.
33
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Properly designed and executed community involvement processes can help to resolve the
legitimate dynamics of the simultaneous need to make decisions and set priorities at both the
facility level and the national level. In recognition of this, the Committee believes that any
efforts to improve stakeholder involvement in the federal facility cleanup decision-making
process should strive to:
• create a process in which communities and agencies are seen as equal partners
in the dialogue on cleanup issues;
• establish productive working relationships among the community, local facility
managers, and regulators;
• increase the accountability of federal agencies to local communities, including
those who have historically been subject to social, economic and environmental
injustice;
• produce results that restore the environment while meeting local community
needs;
• harness and build upon local and indigenous leadership and expertise;
• demonstrate an enduring commitment to the Environmental Justice Executive
Order (Executive Order 12898, February 11, 1994);
• develop linkages among communities and public stakeholders across the nation
to share information about how priorities are being set and decisions are being
made at federal facilities;
• recognize that an open process that involves public stakeholders can help
promote efficiency and hold down costs;
• ensure environmental regulations are implemented equitably; and
• provide access to resources, information, and training so all stakeholders are
able to participate in decision making.
Conclusion
In offering these principles, the Committee hopes to improve the overall process of federal
facility cleanup decision making. They are intended to apply broadly to all aspects of that
process, and all individuals and institutions involved in that process. The following chapters
offer more concrete recommendations for some of the concepts embodied above. In
34
-------
Chapter 2
particular, the Committee has focused on improving overall community involvement in this
process; the use of advisory boards and funding and priority-setting processes which were the
focus the Interim Report; and building the capacity of all stakeholders to effectively
participate in the process.
35
-------
Chapter 3
CHAPTER 3
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Introduction
Since its inception, the Committee has stressed that government agencies should not conduct
their business and public interactions in a "Decide, Announce, and Defend" fashion.
Examples from communities around the nation demonstrate that involving communities early
and often in the decision-making process enables public stakeholders to help agencies make
cost-efficient decisions that lead to faster cleanups. Community involvement is a vital part of
any cleanup program and requires a sustained commitment of finances and resources from
federal agencies and public stakeholders alike, even during times of budget constraints.
Building on Principle 14 of the previous chapter, the recommendations in this chapter are
aimed at improving community involvement processes to more actively engage those most
affected by federal facilities.
Since the publication of the Interim Report, significant progress has been made in the
implementation of the Interim Report recommendations and principles. For details regarding
these efforts, see Boxes 1-7.
Interim Report Recommendations
In its 1993 Interim Report, the
Committee identified the need for good
information dissemination programs as an
essential step in effective community
involvement. The Interim Report identified
three weaknesses in how federal agencies
disseminate information regarding federal
facilities cleanups:
• Stakeholder's opinions are often
solicited late in the process after the
governmental entities have concluded
their investigatory work;
• The extent and the effectiveness of
agency information dissemination
and exchange efforts are inconsistent
between facilities and between
agencies; and
Box 1: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
In order to make information on federal facility cleanup
publicly available, EPA maintains several databases
including CERCLIS, RCRIS, the Hazardous Waste
Docket and the Federal Facilities Bulletin Board, in
addition, EPA works directly with federal facility advisory
boards to provide them with any technical or regulatory
information they need.
EPA has established federal facility coordinators in each
regional office. The coordinators work with EPA
regional programs to provide assistance, training and
outreach for federal facilities, providing a central point of
contact for both the public and the federal facilities.
They assist in implementing federal facility enforcement
programs; manage tracking, oversight, and compliance
planning activities; coordinate and train federal facilities
in developing environmental management program
plans; and encourage pollution prevention at federal
facilities. For more information regarding Superfund, call
EPA's RCRA/CERCIA Hotline, (800) 424-9346 or (703)
412-9810.
37
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Stakeholders perceive that requests for information are treated by government officials
as burdensome and an impediment to management rather than as a right of
citizenship.
Box 2: Department of Energy
DOE published a public participation policy on July 29,
1994. This policy commits the department to candid
information exchanges and ongoing two-way
communication using a variety of mechanisms. Key
aspects of this policy include a commitment to the
following:
• Whether formal or informal, all public participation
activities will be conducted in a spirit of openness, with
respect for different perspectives and a genuine quest
for a diversity of information and ideas.
• The Department will work to establish, announce, and
manage topical data bases of reliable, timely information
available to the public via telephone and computer.
In keeping with these commitments, the Office of
Environmental Management (EM) has established an
EM information center to provide quick and convenient
access to all program information. The center maintains
an 800 number, electronic bulletin board with e-mail
access to all DOE employees, and an extensive library
of program information. The 800 number receives
approximately 1500 inquiries a month while 2000
citizens regularly use the electronic bulletin board.
All major DOE sites have established a Public
Participation Coordinator who serves as the central
point of contact for all public participation activities. This
person is responsible for ensuring that public
participation activities provide meaningful, timely
opportunities for citizens to influence EM's policies.
On the national level, in 1994 EM established the Office
of Public Accountability to coordinate EM public
participation efforts. This office maintains an on-going
public participation training program for senior and mid-
level managers, oversees an EM information center,
and manages 11 site-specific advisory boards, the
national EM Advisory Board, and a national dialogue
with State and Tribal leaders. For more information,
contact Don Beck, Office of Public Accountability, DOE,
(202) 586-7633,
To address these concerns, the Committee
recommended three principles to guide the
exchange of information:
• Federal agencies have an obligation
to ensure that information is
provided to all interested parties
within applicable regulatory,
resource, and budgetary constraints.
• Well developed information
dissemination and exchange
processes should ensure the timely
release of information to public
stakeholders and provide the basis
for informed involvement in decision
making. This should hold true for
any facility, whether it is on the
National Priorities List (NPL) or
not.
• The information dissemination and
exchange process must be consistent
with Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) principles, providing full
disclosure of available information.
Classification of information on the
basis of national security concerns
should not be used to bar the flow of
relevant cleanup information where
security/classification issues no
longer exist. Such information
should be declassified.
In addition to the above principles, the Committee recommended three specific actions in the
Interim Report, including:
• developing agency dissemination policies;
38
-------
Chapter 3
• encouraging public stakeholders to
portray accurately the draft status of
documents or other preliminary
information that they receive in draft
form; and
• establishing a central point of contact
within agencies for assisting in
disseminating information.
Continuing Problems
The Committee reaffirms the importance of
the principles and recommendations
regarding information dissemination
originally stated in the Interim Report. The
members generally applaud the changes that
have occurred in the past years allowing
and even encouraging citizens to play more
active and dynamic roles in the federal
facility cleanup decision-making process.
However, in identifying continuing
problems with information dissemination,
the Committee recognizes that this is only
one, albeit important, component of an
overall community involvement program.
In the following recommendations, the
Committee addresses the range of general
issues regarding community involvement
efforts in federal facility cleanups.
In current community involvement efforts,
federal agencies often do not seek to include
the full range of interested and affected
parties and when they do, they sometimes
do not provide appropriate or adequate
information. This contributes to the
continued mistrust that exists among some
public stakeholders. In particular, concerns
include:
Box 3: Department of Defense
DOD policy on information dissemination for the
restoration program emphasizes the need to provide
information early so that the public can be informed
about program activities and provide input during the
planning process. Specifically this policy requires
installations to make available to the public, in a timely
manner, information on program activities such as draft
final and final technical documents, proposed and final
plans, and status reports. Documents that are
considered deliverables under agreements with
regulatory agencies are to be made available to the
public at the same time that they are provided to
regulatory agencies.
In order to make information accessible to the
community, installations are required to keep information
centers/repositories in a convenient location, often in a
public library. Most installations maintain a mailing list
which they use to reach community members who have
expressed interest in the program directly.
Announcements and fact sheets are typically distributed
to mailing listees.
Installations are developing summaries of the
documents that are brief and readable. This is intended
to help citizens understand results and findings, and to
make it easier for them to comment. Also, DOD
technical personnel are available to explain and interpret
documents at Restoration Advisory Board meetings and
other forums so that RAB members and other interested
citizens have a better understanding of the contents.
DOD installations typically establish points of contact for
providing information on cleanup activities. These
individuals are Knowledgeable about cleanup activities
and can respond to or refer citizen questions to
appropriate information sources. Their names and
phone numbers are widely published.
DOD is in the process of creating regional
environmental coordination offices that would serve a
number of coordinating functions among the Services. A
DOD Service will take the lead role in each region. This
regional environmental coordinator could help resolve
information dissemination problems by ensuring that
issues are brought to the attention of the appropriate
Service representative for resolution at the local level.
For more information, contact Marcia Read,
Environmental Security/Cleanup, DOD, (703) 697-9793.
Community involvement programs have not consistently attempted to reach out to the
full range of stakeholders, particularly communities of color, low-income
communities, and in some cases local government officials;
39
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Box 4: Department of the Interior
The DOI bureaus have responsibility for information
dissemination and for establishing central points of
contact for their environmental cleanup programs. Each
bureau has an office with primary responsibility for the
program, usually located in their headquarters
organization. In addition, the Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance serves as an information
clearinghouse and contact point, both in the
headquarters and in the eight regional offices, which are
located in Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver,
Albuquerque, San Francisco, Portland, and Anchorage.
For more information, contact John Craynon, Office of
Environmental Policy and Compliance, DOI, (202) 208-
3891.
Box 5: U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA agencies with relatively small programs, such as
the Agricultural Research Service, have designated an
individual as Environmental Pollution Control
Coordinator at their headquarters level to be the contact
point for cleanup activities. USDA-Forest Service policy
requires each region and research station to designate
an individual as a CERCLA coordinator to be the
primary point of contact with the headquarters level.
The CERCLA coordinator is responsible for coordinating
all aspects of response actions initiated under CERCLA.
At the project level, it is likely that technical
responsibility for a specific project will be delegated to
an On-Scene Coordinator or Remedial Project Manager
and the unit Public Affairs Specialist will be the
designated Spokesperson for community relations as
described in the NCP, For more information, contact
Harry Kringter, Environmental Engineer, USDA (202)
260-6565.
Federal agency personnel are not
always aware that the information
requirements of communities of
color and low-income communities
may be broader than those of the
regulatory community and may
include information needs on the
entire range of environmental
impacts of proposed actions,
employment, business development,
and educational opportunities;
Federal agencies do not always
include local government decision
makers early enough to ensure that
local officials can identify issues of
concern related to cleanup,
downsizing and closure;
Public stakeholders often do not
have the technical understanding of
the issues and are not prepared for
participation in public activities.
This limited ability hampers the
ability of public stakeholders to
provide relevant substantive input
that can influence the decisions being
made;
Public stakeholders cannot
effectively participate in the
decision-making process when the
field offices and headquarters of
agencies are not communicating
effectively with one another;
Public stakeholders, especially communities of color and low-income communities,
often do not have sufficient resources to translate the information provided by federal
agencies into forms and formats that are useful, easily understandable, and
informative for effective participation in agency decision making;
Some federal agencies continue to apply the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
exemptions in an overly broad and cautious manner. The withholding of an entire
document because portions of it are confidential—such as internal advice,
recommendations and proposals—fails to recognize that other portions containing
40
-------
Chapter 3
factual information may not be
exempted from release;
• In some cases, information
dissemination programs and
community involvement programs
are perceived to be public-relations
efforts designed to present the
agencies' actions in the best light
and to gloss over problems;
• The number of agency personnel
with expertise in involving public
stakeholders in the decision-making
process is limited; and
• Where financial and personnel
resources are constrained,
community involvement programs
may be disproportionately affected.
Recommendations
Box 6: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NOAA has four Regional Environmental Compliance
Officers (RECQs) responsible for implementation of
NOAA environmental compliance programs in the field.
The RECOs provide advice and guidance to field
managers and staff on environmental matters, complete
audits, respond to emergency situations and assist with
development of assessment and remediation actions.
The RECOs complete the A-106 process for their region
and submit to the NOAA Environmental Officer for
consolidation and development of budget requests.
Assessment and remediation documents are shared
with all involved stakeholders in any cleanup effort (e.g.,
regulators, other agencies, the impacted community).
RECOs respond to FOIA requests in coordination with
NOAA General Counsel. Complete project files are
maintained at each RECO office. For more information,
contact Sam Higuchi, Environmental Compliance and
Safety Officer, NOAA, (301) 713-0845.
In addition to the recommendations proposed in the Interim Report and summarized above,
the Committee recommends that federal agencies draft or revisit current policies and
guidance documents directing community involvement activities to ensure that the following
items are incorporated to address the above concerns.
I. Fundamentals of Community Involvement
The Committee recognizes that there are many different and viable mechanisms for
effectively incorporating community concerns in the cleanup decision-making process.
However, the Committee believes any community involvement effort must be:
• transparent;
• open;
• interactive;
• inclusive; and
• responsive.
For these characteristics to be truly effective, agencies need to develop a communications
structure in which public concerns are communicated to both headquarters and field office
levels. This structure should facilitate public stakeholder input into all levels of the decision-
making process. Processes embracing these characteristics will encourage public support of
41
-------
FFERDC Final Report
cleanup decisions, and they are likely to
lead to a more efficient and cost effective
cleanup program.
II. Assess Current Community Needs
Community involvement guidance
documents should encourage field staff to
conduct assessments of public stakeholders'
needs and communities' existing resources
prior to initiating community involvement
programs. Such efforts will help to ensure
a proposed program is appropriate for the
community and does not lead to overlap or
waste in relation to other on-going public
involvement efforts. During this
assessment, public stakeholders have a
responsibility to raise issues and concerns
regarding their involvement in the cleanup
process. Agencies must be willing to invest
the resources and staff expertise necessary
to conduct a proper assessment and to
implement effective community involvement
efforts.
III. Identify Public Stakeholders
Agency policy should direct field staff to
actively seek out and solicit the full
diversity of public stakeholders in
communities and specifically incorporate
information on the importance of and
effective approaches for informing
communities of color, low-income
communities, and local governments.
General guidance from the headquarters of a federal agency should raise awareness regarding
the importance of including a broader diversity of public stakeholders. However, Committee
members warn against the potential for field staff to implement "cookie-cutter" community
involvement programs. There is no good, single implementation program appropriate for all
Latino/Chicano communities, all African-American communities, all Asian/Pacific Islander
communities, or all tribal reservations. For example, the culture, history, and resources of
the Yakama Indian Nation are so different from the Hopi Tribe that any generalizations
regarding information exchange programs for Indian Nations are likely to be incorrect. Any
Box 7: Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), Department of Health and Human Services,
has a number of public health responsibilities under
CERCLA, RCRA, and other environment statutes. The
mandated programs for ATSDR include the
development or conduct of: toxicological profiles;
exposure and disease registries; medical surveillance;
community health studies; public health assessments of
Federal and non-Federal National Priorities List (and
petitioned) sites; health consultations; emergency
response activities; and other public health programs.
Information from community members regarding health
concern, health outcomes, and environmental factors is
a central component of ATSDR site-specific activities.
ATSDR also considers the effective communication of
risk, as well as health and scientific information, a
significant part of its public health management
programming. The following are some community
involvement activities that ATSDR uses to dialogue and
interact with communities around Superfund sites:
public availability sessions; public meetings;
small group briefings; Federal Advisory Committees at
Department of Energy sites; Community Assistance
Panets at Department of Defense sites; public
information and education materials; health education
and {raining; press releases; Federal Register Notices;
and open public comment periods for draft health and
exposure studies (and many other reports).
For example, in July, 1994, the Citizen's Advisory
Committee on Public Health Service Activities and
Research at Department of Energy Sites was chartered
as a Federal Advisory Committee to advise ATSDR (and
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC])
on their health activities around up to six DOE
hazardous waste site communities. To date, four DOE
sites have been selected: Hanford (Washington State),
Savannah River (Georgia & South Carolina), Idaho
National Laboratories (Idaho), and Fernald (Ohio). For
more information, contact Mark Bashor, ATSDR (404)
639-0730.
42
-------
Chapter 3
guidance must stress the importance of field staff learning about and understanding the
specific community at hand.
IV. Use Appropriate Methods to Provide Information to Public Stakeholders
Agency community involvement policies and guidance documents should encourage field staff
to use diverse methods of communication. Potential approaches include:
• Utilizing local media outlets such as local cable TV access and government
channels, newspapers, and local internet service providers to get citizens
involved;
• Ensuring materials for public participation are culturally sensitive and relevant
to the specific area, including providing information in appropriate languages
and at a variety of scientific levels;
• Using local government and other institutional community involvement
mechanisms (i.e., zoning meetings, environmental boards, public health
departments, and citizen advisory boards and local re-use authorities) for
information exchange regarding cleanup activities. Local governments can
establish and maintain information repositories that make documents available
to the public at the same time as they are made available to regulators;
• Designating locations for access to information appropriate and convenient for
the affected communities, and make copies available for public stakeholders;
and
• Applying FOIA exemptions narrowly; consistent with FOIA, any reasonably
segregable portion of a document should be provided to the requesting
stakeholder after deleting portions of the document which are exempt.
V. Communicate Economic Opportunities
Because the economic well being of communities is often integrally linked to its overall
environmental health, appropriate agency guidance documents should encourage field staff to
inform the local communities, including communities of color and low-income communities,
of cleanup employment opportunities. At a minimum, guidance documents should direct
staff to advertise such opportunities afforded by the cleanup effort, including the skills
required and risks inherent in the opportunities. In addition, regulated and regulating
agencies should provide notices of educational and scholarship opportunities in all relevant
languages. Boxes 8 and 9 provide examples of ways that government agencies are working
to inform communities of such opportunities.
43
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Box 8: EPA Region Vl's Community Economic
Partnership Seminar
On December 3, 1994, EPA Region VI, in cooperation
with the Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality
and the City of New Orleans sponsored a "Community
Economic Partnership" seminar in New Orleans. This
minority business contracting seminar was developed to
promote opportunities for local communities by providing
practical tools needed for businesses to become eligible
to participate in federal contracting, particularly when
the government is involved in cleanup efforts.
Planning and coordination at the local, state, and federal
level helped ensure the community had a stake in the
seminar, the right audience was targeted and the right
organizations participated to provide the tools and
information needed. The evaluation feedback indicated
that participants found the workshops, the expertise of
the exhibitors, and the quality of the informational
material the most important.
Region VI has developed a "How to Tips" paper and a
'Time Line for Planning" to assist other organizations in
implementing similar seminars.
VI. Future Use Planning and
Institutional Controls
In Principle 11 in Chapter 2, the Committee
recognizes the relationship between cleanup
and future land uses, and in those instances
where federal land is to be transferred from
federal ownership, the importance of
maintaining institutional control when
cleanup does not allow for unrestricted use.
The Committee recognizes that the
mechanisms for community involvement in
determining future land use and its
relationship to cleanup is an important
issue. We reiterate the following
recommendations regarding involving
communities in this matter:
For properties being transferred from federal ownership, the federal role in the
determination of future land use is generally limited to a review of the determination
made by the state, tribal or local authorities that will have the responsibility to make
the determination. There should be the appropriate forms of stakeholder involvement
in these state, tribal, or local government determination processes.
When making cleanup decisions for properties remaining in federal ownership,
cleanup advisory boards, local planning and reuse authorities, and the public
stakeholders should be consulted about reasonably anticipated future use assumptions.
Cleanup decisions that have previously taken into account the anticipated future use of
properties remaining in federal ownership should be re-evaluated if the land is to be
transferred. In this circumstance, previously made cleanup decisions may need to be
reexamined in view of the land use selected by the state, tribal, or local authorities
that will have jurisdiction over the land to be transferred.
Federal land to be transferred that is not cleaned up to standards that would permit
unrestricted use should be subjected to the appropriate institutional controls exercised
by the transferor/transferee and/or appropriate state, tribal, or local authority (e.g.,
deed restrictions, zoning, physical controls, or monitoring for the life of the hazard).
44
-------
Chapter 3
Conclusion
In general, community involvement
processes should provide opportunities for
the general public both to get information
about cleanup activities and to affect
decisions. These efforts are an integral part
of cleanup programs, and should be
considered a basic cost of doing business.
Community involvement efforts should
reach out to the broadest range of
stakeholders possible and seek their
involvement through a variety of effective
and innovative methods appropriate to their
community.
One particularly effective method of
involvement is to establish advisory boards
at the community level for the purpose of
actively educating and engaging a diverse
set of stakeholders in the cleanup decision-
making process. Such advisory boards can
play a unique role in an overall community
involvement process. Through these
boards, community members and agency
representatives are asked to commit to open
and regular dialogue and work together to
find ways of expediting the cleanup process.
Because of the key role advisory boards
have taken in enabling community
involvement, the following chapter outlines
recommendations for the establishment and
operation of these boards. Although the
Committee agrees that these boards play an
important role in the community involvement process, the Committee emphasizes that such
boards are only one component of the community involvement process and should be used to
complement other involvement activities discussed in this chapter.
Box 9: DOD's Environmental Cleanup Small
Business Work Group
In an effort to promote environmental cleanup
opportunities within the DoD to small disadvantaged
businesses (SDBs), the office of Environmental Security
along with the Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization office established the Environmental Cleanup
Small Business Work Group. Small business experts
from the Army, Navy, and Air Force also participate.
The work group initially agreed that promoting existing
programs to the smalt business community would be
more beneficial to SDBs than creating entirely new
programs. One of their first initiatives was to make
procurement information more accessible and simple to
locate. The solution was an electronic bulletin board
geared specifically for small businesses. By joining
forces with the Defense Technical Information Center
(DTiC), the group successfully implemented an
environmental restoration bulletin board featuring long
range acquisition estimates from the Services, all in one
place. In addition, the bulletin board features
environmental and small business publications;
upcoming conferences; points of contact for small
business offices; and Internet sites that contain
information related to the DOD restoration effort.
The work group also established the first small
disadvantaged business awards for DOD environmental
cleanup. Four SDB firms specializing in environmental
cleanup at DOD sites were each presented with a
plaque and recognized for their contribution to the
program at a national conference of professional
contract managers.
The environmental cleanup small business work group
is the first of its kind. The establishment of realistic
goals designed to benefit both small and small
disadvantaged businesses who work with the
Department has helped the group move forward. This
effort will continue to grow as each goal is met and new
initiatives are identified. For more information, contact
Marcia Read, Environmental Security/Cleanup, DOD
(703) 697-9793.
45
-------
Chapter Four
CHAPTER 4
ADVISORY BOARDS
Introduction
As more information has become available to public stakeholders through community
involvement programs as described in Chapter 3, some stakeholders have requested a greater
role in the decisions that affect the health and environment of their communities. In its
Interim Report, the Committee recommended that facilities establish advisory boards to meet
this need. Since the publication of the Interim Report, the Committee estimates that over
200 advisory boards addressing federal facility cleanup have been established either at the
initiative of the regulated or regulating agencies, or the request of public stakeholders. For
example, DOE has established 11 site-specific advisory boards (SSABs) and DOD has
established over 200 Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs). This overwhelming response to
the Committee's recommendations has initiated a new way to approach community and
federal agency partnerships at these facilities.
In this chapter, the Committee restates its
recommendations for the establishment and
operation of advisory boards. It also
includes new recommendations that have
emerged through the collective experience
of the first two years of implementing the
Committee's original recommendations.
Interim Report Recommendations
In the 1993 Interim Report, the Committee
recommended that federal agencies establish
advisory boards to provide independent
policy and technical advice to the regulated
and regulating agencies with respect to key
cleanup decisions. The Interim Report
proposed a model approach for
implementing the boards and included
recommendations for when boards should
be established and how they should be
formed, operated, and financed.
A brief description of how agencies are implementing the boards can be found in Boxes 10-
14. In institutionalizing the boards, most of the agencies have issued guidance documents for
how these boards should be established and run. To obtain copies of these guidance
Box 10: Department of Energy
As of December, 1995, the DOE Environmental
Management program (EM) has established eleven site-
specific advisory boards at the Hanford, Idaho, Nevada,
Monticello, Fernald, Los Alamos, Sandia, Savannah
River, Pantex, Oak Ridge, and Rocky Flats sites. These
boards were established by DOE in close cooperation
with state environmental agencies and regional EPA
offices.
The site-specific advisory boards (SSABs) were
established to provide site specific advice. The board
chairs, however, do meet several times a year on an
"ad hoc" basis to discuss site-related and national
issues and concerns.
EM also established a national EM advisory board
(EMAB). This board provides broad national advice that
complements the advice from our SSABs. Greater
interaction between the SSABs and the EMAB is
anticipated in the future.
In addition, the State and Tribal Government Working
Group (STGWG), established in 1989, gives affected
states and Indian nations a voice in the DOE decision-
making process. For more information, contact Don
Beck, Office of Public Accountability, DOE, (202) 586-
7633.
47
-------
FFERDC Final Report
documents refer to Appendix D which
includes points of contacts for each agency.
The Committee applauds the massive effort
undertaken by the regulated agencies to
implement the advisory board
recommendations. At the vast majority of
facilities, community participants appreciate
the opportunity to take part in the cleanup
decision-making process. Similarly, agency
officials are realizing the merits of
stakeholder participation. Although it is too
soon to evaluate the overall effect of the
advisory boards in the cleanup process, it
appears that the successful formation of
advisory boards is fostering or supporting a
more cooperative approach among
regulators, regulated agencies, and
communities.
Continuing Problems
In implementing any major new concept
such as establishing advisory boards at
hundreds of facilities of several different
agencies, challenging issues will arise. In
implementing the Interim Report
recommendations for advisory boards,
agencies and public stakeholders have
learned many lessons about establishing and
operating advisory boards. Below is a list
of concerns that the Committee has
identified, as problems that have either
continued despite the establishment of
advisory boards, or arisen through
implementation:
Mistrust among some stakeholders persists at some facilities.
Orientation to the advisory board process can be frustrating and time consuming.
The amount of technical information necessary to understand cleanup options and
their implications can be overwhelming.
Box 11; Department of Defense
DOD is establishing Restoration Advisory Boards
(RABs) at all closing installations and at operating
installations where there is sufficient, sustained interest
on the part of the community. RABs are generally
consistent with the concepts found in the Interim Report.
Policy and implementing guidelines on RABs were
published in 1994, and each of the Services has
promulgated guidance. (See Appendix D)
As of January, 1996, approximately 200 RABS have
been established. RABs bring together people who
reflect the diverse interests within the local community,
enabling the early and continued flow of information
among the affected community, the DOD installation and
the regulatory agencies. The RAB complements other
community involvement efforts, but does not replace
them. DOD's policy is that community members of
RABs should reflect the diverse interests within the local
community and should live or work in the affected
community or be impacted by the restoration program.
The member selection process is designed to be
unbiased and open, and is conducted in cooperation
with regulatory agencies and the community. Once the
RAB has been formed, the installation selects a DOD
co-chair and the community members select a
community co-chair. The co-chairs serve as equal
partners and establish meeting agendas. Both co-chairs
are responsible for ensuring members have the
opportunity to raise issues and concerns and that their
representatives participate in an open and constructive
manner.
Installations are charged with providing administrative
support to the RABs such as meeting facilities,
preparation of minutes, copying/printing of documents,
mailings, public notices, outreach material and meeting
facilitation. Citizen groups can apply for Technical
Assistance Grants through the EPA. In addition, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
provided new authority for DOD to provide up to $7.5
million in technical assistance funding to members of
RABs, DOD is in the process of identifying options for
providing this assistance. For more information, contact
Marcia Read, Environmental Security, DOD, (703) 697-
9793.
48
-------
Chapter Four
There is, in many cases, a lack of
sufficient representation from
affected communities of color. The
membership serving on advisory
boards does not always reflect the
diversity of communities in which
the facilities are located.
There is a lack of clarity regarding
local governments' role in the
advisory board process.
Advisory boards are often considered
the sole focus for agency outreach
efforts to affected and surrounding
communities.
There is a lack of clarity with
respect to the advisory board's role
and expected interaction with other
advisory groups addressing related
issues such as reuse.
There needs to be a process by
which advisory boards can be
evaluated.
Box 12: U. S, Environmental Protection Agency
Carrying out both its oversight and technical assistance
responsibilities, EPA participates on advisory boards
established by other federal agencies. EPA has worked
with DOO and DOE to develop policy and guidance on
the creation and functioning of advisory boards at their
facilities. In addition, EPA has piloted advisory boards
at 10 non-federal facility NPL sites. Through its
Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) program, EPA
provides funds to community groups to provide more
effective community involvement. As of November
1995, TAGs have been awarded at 29 federal facilities.
For more information, contact Sven-Erik Kaiser,
OSWER/FFRO, EPA (202) 260-1606.
Box 13: ATSDR
Community Assistance Panels (CAPS) - ATSDR has
established CAPS operating at Otis Air Force Base
(Massachusetts), the McClellan Air Force Base site
(California), and the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant
Site (Nebraska). These panels inform the public about
site-specific scientific findings and provide a means for
community participation in ATSDR activities. It is
ATSDR policy to either convene a CAP meeting or
provide a written update to the community on its
activities at 90-day intervals. For more information,
contact Mark Bashor, ATSDR (404) 639-0730.
• To date, some agencies have made
little effort to share information among advisory boards. The wealth of information
that has been gained at some sites with 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
Based upon the lessons learned during the past two years of establishing advisory boards and
the recent concerns noted, the following recommendations build upon the proposed model for
advisory boards found in the Interim Report. In many cases, the following recommendations
duplicate the 1993 model. However, some ideas are new or are a revision of the old
recommendations.
49
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Box 14: Departments of the interior, and
Agriculture, and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
USDA, DOI, and NOM have not yet established
advisory boards. At this point, there has not been
sufficient interest at these agencies' facilities. However,
if and when advisory boards are established by one of
these agencies in the future, they will benefit from the
lessons learned and information provided by DOE and
DOD from their experiences with the role, authority,
membership, and evaluation of advisory boards.
In many cases, these agencies have participated in the
advisory board process. They have served as
interested stakeholders on advisory boards established
by other agencies and have worked with the advisory
boards at others to provide input and expertise on
natural resource management and other technical
issues involving the work of their agencies.
The following model approach to the
formation of advisory boards is intended to
serve as an example for how to establish
advisory boards at facilities where they do
not currently exist and as guiding principles
for improving existing advisory boards.
The Committee believes that its
recommendations are sufficiently broad to
permit flexibility for each agency and the
affected communities to adapt them to their
own circumstances.
I. Overview and Scope
The Committee recommends that federal
agencies establish advisory boards
to provide independent policy and technical advice to the regulated and regulating agencies
with respect to key cleanup decisions.
The Committee believes such boards can improve the decision-making process by:
• Providing a setting for direct, regular contact between agencies and a diverse set of
public stakeholders;
• Providing a forum for public stakeholders, local governments, and agencies to
understand the competing needs and requirements of the government and affected
communities;
• Providing a forum for discussing citizen issues and concerns, thus enabling the
development of a more complete and satisfactory plan or decision;
• Enabling citizen review and the evaluation of plans and their technical adequacy in
more depth than is possible in single opportunity public participation efforts;
• Permitting a more detailed consideration of issues than is possible as a result of the
minimal legal requirements identified in various state and federal laws; and
• Allowing cleanup decisions to consider values as well as technical data.
There have been some instructive examples of how advisory boards have served to improve
the decision-making process at their respective facilities dramatically. The information in
Boxes 15-17 provides examples of such efforts at Moffett Naval Air Station, Charleston
Naval Base, and Fernald.
50
-------
Chapter Four
Thus far, one of the more successful public involvement
initiatives in the DOE's nationwide network of nuclear
materials facilities has occurred at DOE's Fernald site
near Cincinnati, OH. A decade ago, relations between
Fernald and its neighbors were so strained that 14,000
area residents filed a class action lawsuit against the
agency and its prime contractor seeking damages for
exposures to off-site pollution and loss of property
values. After the lawsuit was settled in late 1988, the
dialogue between plant operators and neighbors
continued to be an uneasy one even as the mission at
Fernald changed from uranium processing to
environmental cleanup in 1990. Still, the public
involvement initiatives that coincided with the Fernald
site's change in mission have already gathered strong
support from both agency officials and citizens. A
Fernald Citizens Task Force, formed in 1993, was the
first formally organized site specific advisory board in
the DOE system and is cited by both citizens and
agency officials as an important success story. Among
the innovative public involvement approaches at Fernald
is a so-called "partnering" experiment where individual
members of the citizens task force are matched with
individual site officers and managers to improve
communication and expedite problem solving.
The Committee wishes to make clear that
advisory boards should be used to
complement rather than duplicate or
supplant broader site level cleanup public
involvement initiatives. Current guidance
documents by DOE and the Department of
the Navy, for example, mirror this
Committee recommendation. DOE's
guidance notes that "advisory boards
comprise only one facet of a total public
participation program at a site."7 The
Navy's guidance document states that
"Restoration Advisory Boards will not take
the place of community outreach and
participation activities required by law,
regulation, or policy."8 Not every public
stakeholder will have the time or inclination
to participate in advisory boards and the
Committee believes it is vitally important
that all members of the public be afforded
their full rights and privileges with respect
to public involvement. Agencies should ensure
opportunities exist for individuals
who are not members of advisory boards to
participate in discussions regarding cleanup.
The recommendations contained in this section are intended to apply broadly to all
federal facility cleanup activities, regardless of the statute under which they are conducted.
II. When Advisory Boards Should be Established
The Committee recommends that agencies form advisory boards at facilities where no
advisory committee currently exists and where there is a need evidenced by:
• an affected local, state, tribal, or federal government entity requesting the
establishment of an advisory board; or
• at least fifty residents of the community or region in which a facility is located
signing a petition requesting an advisory board. Petitions should be submitted to the
Box 15: The Fernald Advisory Board
7 DOE, Site-Specific Advisory Board Guidance, November 14, 1994, page 2.
8 Department of the Navy, Implementing Guidance for the Establishment of Restoration Advisory Boards,
February 9, 1994, page 2.
51
-------
FFERDC Final Report
facility manager, installation commander, or other lead official at the facility. Copies
of the petition should also be provided to state, tribal, and regulatory agencies.
Box 16: The Moffett Field Advisory Board
Moffett Field, former Pacific headquarters for the Navy's
subchasing P-3C "Orion" aircraft, sits in the heart of
Silicon Valley, at the southern edge of the San
Francisco Bay, Its 26 Installation Restoration Program
sites include a massive plume of shallow groundwater
contaminated with TCE and other volatile organic
compounds. The plume, shared with electronics
industry Superfund sites just to the south, threatens
local drinking water supplies as well as the Bay and its
wetlands.
In early 1990, the base commander, Captain Tim
Quigley, established a Technical Review Committee
(TRC), composed of Navy personnel, regulators, and
representatives of the local community, including the
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC). Quigley
established an active community relations program,
disseminated fact sheets, and shared more detailed
technical information upon request.
Through the TRC and other community relations
activities, local residents and their representatives
gained respect for the Moffett cleanup program, but the
SVTC and others remained critical of the remediation
schedule. They took their case to the press, elected
representatives, and Defense Department officials.
Informed by participation in the TRC, they focused on
the so-called "regional" TCE plume.
In 1994, the Navy turned over responsibility for the
Naval Air Station to other federal agencies, but it
continues to operate the facility's restoration program.
Also in 1994, the Navy began the process of converting
the TRC into a restoration advisory board.
The RAB meets monthly. At meetings and informally
between meetings, public stakeholders and local
government representatives on the RAB discuss
proposed cleanup remedies with the Navy, other
responsible parties, and the regulatory agencies. As a
result of the RAB's discussions, the Navy has more than
once revisited its proposals. For more information,
contact Lenny Siegel, Pacific Studies Center (415) 969-
1545.
Prior to initiating the establishment of a
board, state and federal agencies should
evaluate existing public involvement
programs to determine the community's
need and desire for a new board. Such an
assessment process should solicit the input
of local governments, community groups,
local citizens, workers, and other
stakeholders. If an assessment is made that
an advisory board is not requested or
required, the regulated agency should
consider ways to inform the public of
cleanup activities through other available
fora periodically, as discussed in the more
general community involvement sections of
Chapter 3.
III. Existing Advisory Boards
Where advisory boards already exist, the
Committee intends for its recommendations
to build upon existing groups and not to
supplant them, particularly where they have
proven successful. For example, where an
advisory board, committee, or group
currently exists for addressing cleanup
issues, agencies may need to increase the
scope of issues to be addressed by the
group, add members to ensure
representation of a wider constituency, or
change the way in which the group interacts
with the general public in order to be
consistent with these recommendations.
When more than one advisory board exists, agencies should consider consolidating their
activities, or establishing clear communication between the groups to determine if and how
their scope of issues overlaps. For example, DOD guidance specifically directs installations
52
-------
Chapter Four
to expand or modify existing Technical Review Committees to become Restoration Advisory
Boards, which allow for greater community representation.9
Federal agencies must also consider that
some advisory board-type organizations
were established as features of federal
facility oversight agreements signed between
some states and federal agencies. When
there is a lack of consensus regarding the
need/desirability of additional boards or
groups, the development of Memoranda of
Understanding should be considered in
order to clarify the roles of existing and
proposed entities.
IV. Advisory Board Mission Statement
A statement outlining the mission and duties
of the advisory board should be developed.
At a minimum, it should provide for the
advisory board to advise both the regulated
and regulating agencies on key policy and
technical issues and decisions related to
cleanup at the facility. If an advisory board
is not yet formed, a regulated or regulating
agency may solicit the assistance of a small,
diverse group to assist with the initial
drafting of the mission statement. Any
such draft should later be approved by the
full board. Advisory boards should also
develop comprehensive by-laws and
groundrules that establish common
understanding about advisory board procedures
V. Federal Advisory Committee Act10 Charter
FACA is a public law that was enacted to outline operational guidelines for boards,
committees or similar groups that are established by federal agencies to provide advice to the
federal government. FACA requires agencies to follow certain formalized procedures
including chartering, maintaining balanced memberships, providing public notice of
Box 17: The Charleston, SC Station and
Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board
The Charleston Naval Station and Shipyard has served
as an economic cornerstone in the Charleston, SC area
for nearly one hundred years. Notice of the base
closure generated a great deal of concern about the
impact closure would have on the community. The
establishment of the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
provided a critically important communications link
between the installation, the community and those state
and federal agencies involved in with the closure
process. Recognizing that base reuse was dependent
upon base cleanup, the RAB immediately focused its
efforts on moving the cleanup forward as quickly and
smoothly as possible. This has been accomplished by
working with each of the various agencies toward the
end of ensuring that the needs of the community are
consistently a primary consideration in the decision-
making process.
One of the strengths of the RAB is that the membership
reflects the diversity which exists within the greater
Charleston community. This strength in turn ensures
that those with an interest in the base closure will have
the opportunity to be heard. The Navy and the several
state and federal agencies do their work competently
but their goals are different from that of the RAB. The
mission of the RAB is to focus the competence found in
the other agencies for maximum benefit to the
community. The Charleston RAB has consistently,
functioned as a cohesive group with shared common
interests without acrimony. For more information,
contact Arthur Pinckney, Grassroots Conversion
Coalition (803) 884-2646.
9DOD and EPA, Restoration Advisory Board Implementation Guidelines, September 27, 1994, page 2.
10FACA, Public Law No. 92-463, 5 U.S. Code Appendix 2.
53
-------
FFERDC Final Report
meetings, and holding meetings open to the public. In addition to the statutory requirements,
agencies establishing advisory boards must comply with their own implementing regulations,
the administrative guidelines of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), and the
approval of OMB.
In the Interim Report, the Committee stated that it "does not believe it is necessary or
prudent to charter all SSABs as federal advisory committees." The Committee supported its
recommendation by pointing out that the recommended approach to the establishment and
operation of boards is consistent with the spirit of FACA to create advisory committees that
are balanced and subject to an open process. Furthermore, the Committee wished to avoid
unnecessary burdens that may hamper the creation of such boards.
Since the release of the Interim Report, the Clinton Administration has placed limits on the
creation of new FACA committees. Partly in response, agencies have approached FACA
charters for their advisory boards in at least two different ways. DOD, building on the
approach it had taken with its Technical Review Committees (TRCs), which were a precursor
to RABs, has not chartered their RABs as federal advisory committees. DOE has established
a single FACA charter for all of its SSABs. Regardless of whether agencies charter their
advisory boards, the Committee recommends that boards and agencies comply with the spirit
of FACA regarding maintaining balanced membership, holding open meetings, and providing
public notice for meetings in manners that are appropriate for the facilities' community.
The Committee notes that many of the administrative provisions in both the FACA statutory
language and its implementing regulations are burdensome at best and intrusive in many
cases. FACA includes several provisions that are not always helpful when applied to
community advisory boards. For example, FACA requires agencies with advisory boards to
provide public notice of meetings in the Federal Register; for local advisory boards,
mechanisms such as publication in local papers or notice by mail may be more effective. It
also empowers the chartering agency with the authority to adjourn meetings and approve
agendas—powers which some communities believe could be abused. The Committee
encourages agencies that charter boards to make very judicious use of FACA authorities and
to do so in consultation with board members. Finally, chartering agencies should also seek
to reduce the bureaucratic burden of the law on board members to the greatest extent
possible.
VI. Scope of Advisory Boards
The Committee believes the boards should focus on protection of human health, cleanup,
waste management, and technology development issues that are clearly relevant to the
cleanup of the facility. In focusing on cleanup, these boards may provide independent advice
on issues identified in their mission statements such as:
• ensuring that appropriate measures (both interim and permanent) to protect human
health and the environment against substantial and imminent risks are implemented as
early as possible;
54
-------
Chapter Four
• identifying cleanup activities and projects;
• tracking progress on those activities/projects;
• providing information and perspectives on cleanup priorities;
• tracking possible implications for other communities along transportation corridors
and in areas of waste storage facilities when discussing final waste disposition
possibilities;
• evaluating possible employment opportunities and associated risks, local economic
benefits provided by the cleanup process, and appropriate vehicles for providing this
information to the public;
• addressing important issues related to cleanup, such as land use, level of cleanup, risk
management strategies, waste management, technology and economic development
issues related to cleanup; and
• developing cleanup strategies.
The advisory boards should have the discretion to hear presentations on the social, economic,
cultural, aesthetic, public health, and worker health and safety effects of cleanup and waste
management and technology development issues related to cleanup. In addition, the
Committee agrees that advisory boards should hear presentations on other environmental
management decisions that advisory board members regard as relevant and appropriate.
At many facilities there are separate boards or groups whose primary mission is to address
re-use issues at the facility. In addition, there may be other community groups addressing
similar cleanup issues at the same, or another nearby facility. If there is more than one
advisory board addressing similar federal facility issues, the Committee recommends that the
boards should make all efforts to communicate with one another.
The Committee believes advisory boards should remain separate from redevelopment
authorities, but they should work together wherever possible. Issues relating to
redevelopment, such as determining future land uses, may require involvement and
representation of different public stakeholders and agency personnel from those involved with
boards established to provide advice regarding cleanup decisions. The Committee suggests
advisory boards as described in this report should only address anticipated future land uses
when it relates to cleanup decisions. When future land use is addressed, efforts should be
made to sufficiently involve stakeholders with key interests in land use, such as local
governments, in the board's discussions.
55
-------
FFERDC Final Report
VII. Role of Regulated and Regulating Agencies
As stated above, the advisory board is intended to be a forum through which advice can be
given to both regulated and regulating agencies on cleanup and waste management and
technology development related to cleanup. The regulated agency should serve as the host of
the advisory board and should provide administrative assistance, meeting facilities, and other
logistical support as necessary. The Interim Report recommended that senior representatives
of both regulated and regulating agencies should serve as "ex-officio" participants of the
advisory board. The term ex-officio was used to imply that representatives of these agencies
should attend advisory board meetings and participate actively in advisory board discussions
by making their views known. However, because the advice from the advisory boards will
be directed at their agencies, the Interim Report recommended that agency representatives
should not take part in final decisions about what recommendations are made.
Since the publication of the Interim Report, DOE and DOD have established advisory boards
that involve regulated and regulating agencies in different ways. DOE's SSABs essentially
follow the model outlined in the Interim Report. DOD has directed RABs to include
regulated and regulating agency representatives as regular board members and for the
installation commander or his or her designee to serve as co-chair along with a community
representative. (For copies of DOD and DOE guidance documents on this issue see the
points of contact in Appendix D).
Because both models seem to be working, the Committee remains silent in this report
regarding whether regulated and regulating agencies should serve as ex-officio or full
members. Nonetheless, experience from RABs, SSABs, and advisory boards in the private
sector proves that community members may stop participating actively in boards because
senior managers do not come and actively participate in board meetings, or senior managers
ignore the advice of board members without providing an explanation. Regardless of their
title, the Committee strongly recommends that regulated and regulating agencies' role be
defined in three ways. First, the most senior level person available with site-specific cleanup
responsibility from the regulated and regulating agency should participate in board meetings.
Second, the participants from the regulated and regulating agencies should be responsive to
the concerns and advice of the advisory board or provide a reasonable explanation for not
adhering to the advice. Third, representatives from regulating and regulated agencies should
serve as information sources for the board, providing updates and background as needed.
VIII. Advisory Board Membership
The Committee recommends that advisory boards should reflect the full diversity of views in
the affected community and region and be composed primarily of people who are directly
affected by facility cleanup activities. Boards should also attempt to maximize participation
from public stakeholders in a manner that reflects the ethnicity, race, and distribution of
income within the affected communities. The Committee recommends the following public
stakeholders, where they exist, be given the opportunity to be included as board members:
56
-------
Chapter Four
• individual residents that live in or own property around the communities or regions in
which a facility is located;
• representatives of citizen, environmental, and public interest groups whose members
live in the communities or regions affected by the environmental contamination and
related cleanup efforts at a facility;
• workers or representatives of workers involved in or affected by cleanup operations at
the facility, with a priority for cleanup and production workers who are currently
employed at the facility;
• representatives of Tribes and other indigenous peoples that have treaty or statutory
rights that are affected by environmental contamination and related cleanup activities
at the facility; and
• representatives of local government.
Appropriate qualities for an advisory board member include an ability to focus on cleanup
issues and a willingness to devote the time over an extended period necessary to serve
effectively on a board. Public stakeholders should not be disqualified because they are critics
of activities at the facility. Every effort should be made to include divergent interests and
viewpoints, regardless of technical expertise.
In addition, representatives of other federal, state, and local government agencies should be
included on the board, as appropriate, to represent their interests as natural resource trustees,
managers of adjacent or impacted public lands or recipients of lands. In some cases,
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) from the private sector directly involved in or affected
by facility cleanup activities could participate at the discretion of the advisory board.
Advisory boards, in conjunction with their host agency, should clarify the specific role that
each of these entities play, particularly in the board's decision-making process.
The Committee recommends that in order to address environmental equity concerns, special
efforts should be made to provide notice and opportunity to participate for people who are or
have historically been disproportionately impacted by site contamination.
The Committee recommends that the size of the boards should be limited to promote
efficiency and encourage participation, while also ensuring that the major public stakeholders
or groups of public stakeholders are adequately represented. The Committee recommends
that the size of the advisory board should be determined by the community in collaboration
with the agencies.
IX. Membership Selection Processes for Advisory Boards
In its Interim Report, the Committee recommended very specific procedures for choosing
members to serve on the advisory board. A description of this process can be found in Box
57
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Box 18: FFERDC Interim Report Member
Selection Process
The Committee's Interim Report provided the following
guidelines for the membership selection process:
Regulating agencies shall actively and publicly solicit
nominations for advisory board membership from
interested individuals and organizations, ensuring that
ample notification is given to those with an active
interest or obvious stake in cleanup activities at the site.
Such notification should also be given to national
organizations that have expressed an interest in that
agency's cleanup program and by publication of a notice
in the Federal Register. Interested organizations and
individuals, including those whose nomination has not
been solicited by the regulating agencies, should submit
nominations for advisory board membership to the
regulating agencies. Furthermore, the regulating
agencies shall solicit nominations from the governor,
local congressional representative(s), state legislators,
and affected county, city, and tribal governments. In
addition, the regulating agencies have a responsibility to
inform and solicit the interest of potentially affected
community members who initially appear uninterested or
unaware.
Based on the above criteria, the regulating agencies
should review all nominations, submit a proposed list of
advisory board members to the regulated agency, and
make this list publicly available. This list should be
mailed to all who were nominated or submitted
nominations and published in the Federal Register.
The regulated agency shall accept the recommended
list of advisory board participants unless it determines
that the list does not ensure a sufficient diversity of
viewpoints or an appropriate balance of affected
interests. Decisions of the regulated agency to accept
or reject the proposed list must be made and explained
openly and publicly. Once again, all who have been
nominated or submitted nominations in the first step
should be notified of the decision of the regulated
agency.
If the regulated agency rejects the proposed list, the
regulating agencies, with the advice of federal, state,
tribal, and local government representatives, shalf
propose, and make publicly available, an alternative list
that addresses the specified imbalance or lack of
diversity.
If advisory board membership selections issues have
not been resolved after step 4, the regulating and
regulated agencies will refer the matter to higher levels
of authority within their agencies for final resolution. For
more information, contact The Keystone Center (970)
468-5822.
18. Since this time, some communities
have followed this exact set of procedures
with success. However, other communities
have chosen very different methods that
have typically been equally successful. An
example of one of these processes can be
found in Box 19. In addition, several
agencies, and military services have
established specific guidance documents for
choosing board members that differs from
the Committee's recommendations.
Examples of this language can be found in
Appendix E. Although these guidance
documents provide general direction to field
staff, specific implementation of advisory
boards is intended to be adapted to the
needs of the individual facilities. Given the
above, the Committee recognizes that there
are many ways to effectively select
individuals to serve on advisory boards.
Regardless of the specific process used, the
Committee stresses the importance of using
an open and fair process that leads to the
creation of a diverse and balanced board.
Advisory boards, once established, should
develop procedures for adding, replacing,
or removing board members. In doing so,
the advisory board should consider carefully
the need to assure that the board does not
become too large so as to be unmanageable
and that the full diversity of views in the
community/region are fairly represented.
Procedures for adding new members should
give special emphasis to:
• interests that, in the view of the
advisory board, are not adequately
represented at the time of the initial
formation of the advisory board; and
• expressions of new interests that may
not have existed or were not
considered at the time of the initial
formation of the advisory board.
58
-------
Chapter Four
Although the process by which board
members are initially chosen is extremely
important in regard to the credibility of the
board, allowing established boards to add,
replace, and remove board members should
help provide an effective safety valve for
correcting unfair selection processes.
Notwithstanding the recommended role of
the advisory board on these matters, it
remains the obligation of all participants-
including the regulated and regulating
agencies—to ensure that the membership of
the advisory board is composed of a
manageable number of people, is properly
balanced, and adequately represents the
diversity of views within the affected
community.
X. Role of Contractors
Agencies should consider including
contractor representatives as a part of their
team because of the important role
contractors often play in actually planning
and conducting cleanup activities on behalf
of regulated agencies. However, because
contractors support the regulated agency,
the Committee agrees that contractor
participation in advisory board discussions
should never serve as a substitute for the
participation of senior representatives of the
regulated agency. Contractor employees in
decision-making capacities should not serve
as regular members of advisory boards.
XI. Role of Local Government
Officials
Box 19: Selection Process for DOE Pantex
Plant
In the Spring of 1993, community members requested
that DOE establish a citizens' advisory board for the
Pantex Plant in the Panhandle of Texas, near Amarillo,
In response, DOE, EPA Region B, and the Texas
Governor's Office sponsored two public meetings to
discuss procedures for setting up an advisory board,
and DOE hired a neutral third party facilitator to assist
with the process. In addition to putting advertisements
in the local media, organizational lists from groups such
as the Chamber of Commerce, The Peace Farm,
NAACP, and unions at the plant were obtained and
individuals were sent invitations. Approximately 200
community members attended.
During the two workshops, full consensus was reached
by all parties in attendance (including DOE, EPA, the
Texas Attorney General Office, and other state
regulatory agencies in addition to a multitude of
community members and plant workers) regarding the
scope of issues the advisory board should address, the
accountability of agencies to the board and the board to
the public, the size of the board, and the membership
selection process. In brief, the selection process
included a group of six representatives (a representative
from the Governor's Office and the Office of the
Attorney General, plus four local residents) chose a 16
person selection committee, including two from each of
the following categories: area resident, regional
resident, labor, Pantex worker, agricultural sector,
business community, environmental organization, and
local government). The selection committee then
sorted through more than 80 applications, conducted
interviews, and selected the first eight nominees for the
advisory board. This core group then selected 12 more
names and submitted the slate of 20 names to the
Secretary of Energy. Secretary of Energy Hazel
O'Leary reviewed the list to ensure balance and
diversity and approved it.
Although the process was cumbersome and slow, ft
involved the full diversity of community members and
helped to establish trust between DOE and the
community and between the widely varying groups
within the community. It also produced an advisory
board that looks like the community in regard to race,
ethnicity, sex, income levels, and perspectives regarding
the Pantex Plant. For more information, contact The
Keystone Center, (970) 468-5822,
Because of the diverse services local
governments provide, ranging from land use planning to managing water and sewer systems,
it is essential that local government officials be consulted and given the opportunity to be
closely involved in the advisory board process from the beginning. Local governments have
traditionally filled a broad set of responsibilities that are relevant to federal facility cleanups
in their jurisdiction, including: 1) protecting public health and safety through services,
education, and regulations; 2) protecting or enhancing the community's quality of life
59
-------
FFERDC Final Report
through community comprehensive planning; and 3) securing a viable economic future.
Therefore, they may provide advisory boards with information regarding local comprehensive
plans, laws and regulations, history, culture and demographics, and may assist in community
involvement activities. In many cases, local government is the institutional authority that
will address the effects of cleanup decisions long after federal decision makers have
withdrawn from the community.
As part of the formation of an advisory board, federal agencies should meet with and sponsor
workshops for local government officials to explain the advisory board process. Recognizing
that facility cleanups often affect the jurisdictions of several counties and towns, federal
conveners should focus their primary efforts on consulting with local governments most
directly affected by the federal facility cleanup.
In practice, local government involvement in federal facility decision making varies from
facility to facility. Local government officials should have the opportunity to decide, taking
into account local laws and community preference, if and how they will participate in a
federal agency-sponsored advisory board. Local government options for participation may
include: 1) full member; 2) ex-officio participant; or 3) advisory board convener. In
addition, the local government may decide not to participate in the advisory board.
Box 20: Moffett Field Restoration Advisory
Board Decision-Making Process
Most Defense Department-sponsored Restoration
Advisory Boards conduct much of their business without
formal votes. Many, however, have written their own
charters establishing voting procedures to fall back
upon should the normal give-and-take prove insufficient.
For example, the "voting table" of the Moffett Field
Restoration Advisory Board includes the following rules
among sixteen separate contingencies:
Issue
Set Agenda
Who Votes
Whole RAB
Elect Community Community
Co-Chair members only
Farm Committee Community
members only
Required
Number of
Votes
Majority
Majority
Two thirds
For more information, contact Lenny Siegel, Pacific
Studies Center, (415) 969-1545.
XII. Decision-Making Process
At the outset of the advisory process, the
board should determine explicitly how it
will make decisions about what advice and
recommendations it should give, who
should give the advice, and in particular,
how to ensure that dissenting views are
addressed. In general, DOE boards tend to
operate by consensus with regulating and
regulated agencies not taking part in the
decision making. In general, DOD boards
tend to provide individual advice with all
parties participating in the discussion. Box
20 shows an example of how one advisory
board makes decisions.
XIII. Operating Procedures
At the establishment of each advisory
board, advisory board members as a group
should develop appropriate groundrules and
60
-------
Chapter Four
operating procedures to allow for the efficient and productive operation of the group. Each
advisory board should consider establishing procedures regarding the following:
• Naming a chairperson, hiring a coordinator, or appointing an independent facilitator,
as deemed necessary by the advisory board, whose principal role would be to ensure:
— advisory board meetings are run effectively and in a manner that is consistent
with the advisory board's agreed upon groundrules;
— the board maintains its focus on cleanup issues and waste management and
technology development issues related to cleanup; and
— whatever logistical and administrative tasks that the advisory board determines
are necessary to play its advisory role effectively are accomplished.
• Forming subcommittees where and when it is appropriate;
• Determining what type of public record is kept of meetings (video, minutes, general
summary, etc.);
• Establishing procedures for adding, replacing, and removing advisory board members;
• Determining how to provide advance public notice for meetings effectively;
• Deciding what, if any, terms, rotational schedule, term limits, or use of alternates are
appropriate to help ensure a balance of interests and continuing opportunity for access
to advisory board participation; and
• Determining when the work of the advisory board is complete or the overall interest
in participating has diminished to such a level that the advisory board should be
dissolved.
The regulated and regulating agencies should also establish and make public operating
procedures that, to the extent possible, attempt to ensure continuity in the availability of the
staff who are principally responsible for interacting with the advisory board.
FV. Education and Training
A comprehensive orientation at the outset of the advisory board's work followed by a
continuing education program tailored to the needs of both citizen and agency participants
can considerably aid in the formation and growth of advisory boards. Examples of some
training efforts are included in Boxes 21-22. Particular attention should be given to
education for board members from communities or other stakeholder groups that have
traditionally not been engaged in discussions regarding environmental issues at the facility.
Although at the outset agencies have a vital, participatory role in the education process, it is
61
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Box 21: Department of Defense RAB Training
DOD has provided orientation training for RAB
community members to help them prepare for the
technical and operational issues addressed by the RAB.
The training also provides skills for acting as
communications conduits for the community. Topics in
the training sessions have included; the purpose and
responsibilities of the RAB; regulatory background
information; facility status and tour; the base mission;
and communication skills. Typically. RAB members
have received 10-15 hours of training. These efforts
have proven to be most effective when accomplished
early on in the process of establishing a RAB. For more
information, contact Marcia Read, Environmental
Security/Cleanup, DOD, (703) 697-9793.
the board members themselves who should
ultimately decide on the process and
direction of education efforts. Contained in
this section is an extensive listing of topics
that should be considered in the educational
needs assessment of the advisory board.
Advisory boards are cautioned that it will
likely not be practical to obtain in-depth
education on all of these topics, especially
in a short period of time; topics should be
prioritized based on the needs of the board
members.
Because the technical issues and level of public understanding of these issues can vary
dramatically from facility to facility, the Committee recommends that an advisory board
training needs assessment be conducted for each advisory board. Among other factors, the
needs assessment should elicit input on training topics, the incorporation of training into the
broader mission of the advisory board, and ideas and preferences for finding and enlisting
qualified trainers or instructors.
A. Technical Assistance Notification
Immediately upon forming an advisory board, members should be notified with regard to the
options available for receiving technical assistance in the review of environmental issues at
the facility. The options should include those offered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the facility operator, and any other relevant program offered by federal, state, or
private entities. The notification should include the opportunities and procedures for utilizing
independent experts in addressing relevant problems and issues.
B.
Orientation
Creating a successful advisory board involves building a new relationship between facility
managers and the people affected by environmental issues at the facility. Based on
experiences at federal facilities that have created or are in the process of creating advisory
boards, it is clear that a well-crafted and thorough initial orientation for prospective board
members and agency participants can provide a valuable foundation for this relationship.
Member orientation, which may take several meetings to complete, should help provide a
better and more common understanding of the facility and its environmental needs, and the
communities and their environmental needs. It should also help ensure that advisory board
members have the knowledge and tools they need to begin the process.
62
-------
Chapter Four
Although the structure and pace of
orientations should be arranged to fit the
particular needs and circumstances at each
facility, the process may include but not be
limited to such elements as:
• team building;
• facility tour and orientation to
current mission(s);
• facility history, including agency and
public perspectives;
• natural resources overview;
• cultural history and sensitivity to
cultural issues;
• overview of federal operations, past
and present;
• overview of past and present agency
environmental policies and practices;
• overview of applicable state and
federal environmental regulations,
including federal facility agreements;
• the relationship between policies,
regulations and agreements and the
current environmental management
agenda at the facility.
• responsibilities of agencies to the
public and to the advisory board;
• expected role of the advisory board
in facility environmental decision
making, including scope of issues to
be addressed by the board;
• present and future land use issues
and their effect on cleanup decision
making;
• the impact of the facility upon public health and the environment;
• the agencies' budget process;
• the agencies' procurement process;
• the role and interests of local government in land-use planning and other relevant
issues; and
• citizen right-to-know laws.
C. Team Building
Since it is important for advisory boards to function as effectively as possible, the orientation
ought not to focus purely on the exchange of information. It should also encourage an
Box 22: Training Workshops
Many organizations are undertaking efforts to educate
community members about the issues surrounding
federal facilities cleanups. The following are a few
examples of efforts that have occurred to date. For
more information on these efforts, please contact the
people listed.
Xavier University's Deep South Center for
Environmental Justice has spearheaded an effort of
community leaders to strengthen citizen's right to know
and encourage the participation of community persons
in military cleanup activities. Specifically, the project is
aimed at preparing community members to serve on
DOD advisory boards and continues through October,
1996. Bev Wright (504) 483-7340.
San Francisco State University has held workshops to
provide members of advisory boards with the
background information necessary to effectively serve
as advisors on their boards. Aimee Houghton (415)
904-7750.
Council of Energy Resource Tribes has conducted
workshops for affected tribes on both the local and
national level about DOD cleanup issues. The
workshops provide information on the regulatory
framework, community involvement, remediation, and
the federal grant process. Merv Tano (303) 296-2378.
The League of Women Voters Education Fund
assists its local chapters with many on-going education
efforts about DOE cleanup issues. For information on
these efforts contact their national office. Division of
Natural Resources (202) 429-1965.
The Department of Defense has held seven regional
workshops designed to familiarize DOD, EPA, states,
tribes, and community members with DOD's RAB policy.
Topics in the workshops included: RAB purpose, RAB
establishment, member selection process, and agency
roles. Marcia Read (703) 697-9793.
63
-------
FFERDC Final Report
element of team building for advisory board members. This is based on the premise that all
advisory board members will need to expend some time and effort toward forming a cohesive
unit, identifying common goals and expectations and laying mutually accepted ground rules
for conducting advisory board's activities. This process might include voluntary participation
in facilitated team-building exercises and/or workshops involving all board members,
including regulated and regulating agency participants.
D. Ongoing Education
The preparation and continuing education of advisory board members is vital to the quality
and substance of their advisory role. Likewise, the ability of agency personnel to
communicate intelligibly and responsively with advisory board members is vital to both the
health and efficiency of the advisory process. For these reasons, the Committee recommends
that agencies work with advisory boards to develop a slate of options for technical training
for advisory board members, while at the same time pursuing communication and other such
training that can enable agency personnel to interact more effectively with advisory board
members and the public at large.
In determining who should conduct training for advisory board members, agencies should
consider:
• the expressed preferences of advisory board members;
• the history of the relationships between the community and the agency, and the
resultant trust level between the two;
• the ability of agency or contractor personnel to express concepts in an
understandable manner to advisory board members; and
• the ability of presenters to exercise cultural sensitivity.
Technical education options might include such things as:
• Periodic technical workshops for advisory board members and alternates on
specific technical issues affecting the facility's environmental management.
• The development of specific educational materials (i.e., maps, toxicity
profiles, risk assessment processes, cultural and archaeological histories,
applicable laws and regulations) that assist board members as they move
toward recommendations on key issues. Included in these materials should be
any reports, summaries, issue papers, etc., developed by the board or board
subcommittees on specific issues.
• One-on-one tutorials where board members could have direct access to agency
specialists who would be assigned to cooperate in such a manner.
64
-------
Chapter Four
Boards should make a special effort to consider training programs that could be provided by
advisory board members or local community members. Particularly in instances where
mistrust between the agency(ies) and community is an obstacle, consideration should also be
given to involving advisory board members in the training of other members as part of a
mentoring program. Another approach to consider in such circumstances is the development
of a partnering program involving advisory board members and agency personnel in which
trust and communication building activities are incorporated into the work and function of the
advisory board.
To the extent practicable, training and education opportunities should be open to members of
the community who are not members of advisory boards. Options include registration for
workshops and sessions by interested individuals with the sponsoring agency, and video-
taping sessions for viewing by interested individuals and groups. By doing so, agencies
make better use of limited resources and provide training materials for new members of
advisory boards.
XV. Accountability
First and foremost, all advisory board members have a responsibility to work in a manner
that promotes efficient and effective cleanup that protects human health and the environment.
Federal agencies and regulators have a responsibility to respond to recommendations and
advice from advisory board members by providing information on:
• recommendations or advice that can or will be implemented;
• recommendations that need to be modified in order to be implemented; and
• recommendations that cannot be or will not implemented and why.
The'advisory boards may request a written response to any recommendation or advice made
by its members. Advisory boards and agencies should maintain a record of recommendations
or advice made by the board and the status and substance of all responses. Advisory boards
also have the responsibility to respond to issues raised by the regulated agencies. A log of
such issues and responses should be kept.
Members have an obligation to attend all advisory board meetings to the extent possible.
Members also have a responsibility to portray data accurately or information provided to
them as members of the advisory board. If members distribute draft documents to others
outside of the advisory board, they must indicate the preliminary or draft nature of the
document.
Advisory board members representing an organized interest have a responsibility to share
information with and provide feedback from the constituencies they represent. Members of
the advisory board also have a responsibility for bringing community issues and values to the
discussion, particularly from the constituency they are representing.
65
-------
FFERDC Final Report
VI. Interaction with the Public
Members of the public, who may not have the time, resources or inclination to participate on
an advisory board, must nonetheless be given opportunities to be kept adequately informed of
and involved in cleanup decisions affecting their lives and their communities. As such,
advisory boards should conduct their activities in a manner that complements rather than
duplicates or supplants broader public involvement efforts, some of which are legally
required. To this end, members of the advisory board, along with the participating regulated
and regulating agencies, should make every effort to coordinate the timing and focus of
advisory board activities with the need for broader public involvement activities as identified
in the comprehensive community involvement plan for the facility. The Committee
encourages regulated and regulating agencies to use the advisory board as one of many
methods to obtain information to be included in the comprehensive community involvement
plan about how and when such broader public involvement activities should be conducted. In
addition, in order to maintain trust and accountability, interested members of the public
should be notified of advisory board meetings, advisory board meetings should be open to the
public, and some type of record documenting the meetings should be made available to the
public. Finally, advisory boanis should provide opportunity for public comment at their
meetings and should make every effort to respond to both written and oral comments that are
submitted in a timely manner.
XVII. Advisory Board Input on Negotiated Cleanup Agreements
The Committee believes the public should be informed of any efforts to negotiate formal
cleanup agreements between regulated and regulating agencies (e.g., Interagency Agreements
as per Section 120 of CERCLA). In addition, the agencies conducting the negotiations
should make an effort to ensure that their negotiators are kept informed of community
concerns and issues. In many cases, advisory boards offer regulated and regulating agencies
a good opportunity for focused and meaningful input into the negotiations because of their
background knowledge of issues at the facility, and their ability to respond quickly to
negotiator's concerns and questions. Appropriate information exchange includes any risk
assessments having bearing on the negotiated cleanup, schedules for cleanup activities and
their associated costs, priorities for cleanup that should be considered for enforceable
milestones, and provisions for interaction with the public and the advisory board in future
decisions.
Under ideal circumstances, the advisory board may develop priorities and timeframes related
to cleanup efforts at the facility that can be used as input into the cleanup agreement
negotiations. Agency negotiators should communicate directly with advisory boards on
issues of mutual concern. For example, the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board co-
sponsored public workshops on the draft Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement. In addition, the
agencies conducting the negotiations have used an information liaison as well as an on-line
bulletin board system to keep the public informed.
66
-------
Chapter Four
XVIII. Administrative and Technical Assistance Funding
The Committee recommends that the regulated agency should provide advisory board funding
for both administrative support and technical assistance in order to ensure meaningful public
involvement. The first two sections that follow outline the general principles the Committee
agrees to regarding each type of funding. The last section discusses a number of funding
implementation issues.
A. Administrative Funding
The Committee recommends that regulated agencies serving as "hosts" of the advisory board
should provide funding to cover the routine administrative needs of advisory boards that will
allow them to operate efficiently and effectively, such as meeting space, document
duplication, and mailings. The Committee agrees that funds should be provided for food,
lodging, and travel expenses of local advisory board members who must travel overnight to
attend meetings, hiring a coordinator or independent facilitator (where deemed necessary by
the advisory board), and other similar expenses necessary for advisory board business.
The Committee recommends that regulated agencies should work with advisory boards to
establish a limit or ceiling on administrative costs for each advisory board. Advisory boards
should be responsible for establishing priorities and allocating the administrative funding
provided.
B. Technical Assistance Funding
The Committee supports providing advisory boards with technical assistance funding in cases
where there is a clear need. In many instances, citizen members serving on advisory boards
lack the technical resources to monitor and comment effectively on the technical aspects of
investigation and cleanup at these facilities. Also, some advisory members lack trust and
confidence in the governments' technical advisors due to past environmental and health
problems in their communities. Investing such funds in developing the knowledge and the
expertise of the community can lead to more cooperative efforts and improved cleanups.
Therefore, to help ensure more effective and meaningful participation, the Committee
recommends that advisory boards receive technical funding support in cases where there is a
clear need. Specific examples of uses of such funding include: providing travel, per diem,
and compensation for an outside expert to make a presentation to the board, hiring a
consultant to assist board members in reviewing documents, and providing local training
courses to educate advisory board members regarding relevant regulatory processes.
The Committee agrees that technical assistance funding should be used to complement, rather
than duplicate, the technical programs of both the regulated and regulating agencies.
Therefore, regulated and regulating agencies first have the responsibility to produce technical
documents that are clear and concise, to the extent feasible. Further, to avoid duplication,
advisory board technical assistance funds should not be used for performing additional
67
-------
FFERDC Final Report
sampling. In addition, the Committee agrees that technical assistance should not be used to
underwrite legal actions in any way, including the preparation of testimony or the hiring of
expert witnesses. The work of any advisory board technical consultant should occur
concurrently with the on-going efforts of the regulated and regulating agencies so as not to
slow down or impede the process. It is the responsibility of the regulated agency to help
coordinate this review process and to provide information to expedite the ability of the board
to provide timely input.
C. Implementation of Administrative and Technical Assistance Funding
The following section includes recommendations on who should be eligible for the funding,
determining the appropriate amount of funding, and finding potential mechanisms for
channeling funding to advisory boards.
Potential Recipients
The Committee recommends that advisory boards should demonstrate a clear need to be
eligible for assistance. The Committee recommends that regulated agencies with advisory
boards, such as DOD, DOE, NOAA, and ATSDR, in consultation with other stakeholders,
develop specific national criteria for demonstrating need. To accelerate the implementation
of this program, the Committee urges the regulated agencies to begin this process of
consultation as soon as possible.
In addition to establishing need, the Committee recommends three other criteria in regards to
who should receive funding. First, the Committee intends for the technical assistance
funding to be used primarily for the education and support of community members, in
particular those who serve on advisory boards. Although some activities may be directed at
the entire board, such as group training sessions or presentations to the board, the Committee
agrees that the intended audience of these funds is not the regulated or regulating agencies,
private sector responsible parties, or contractors who may be participating in the advisory
board. Recipients of such funds, however, should ensure that any funded activities are open
to other interested members of the community, where possible and appropriate.
Second, the Committee recommends that such funding should be available to advisory boards
at both NPL and non-NPL facilities.
Third, the Committee recommends that technical assistance funding provided to advisory
boards under this program should be coordinated with any future grants at these sites
provided by EPA under the Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) program. EPA and
regulated agencies should work together to ensure that recipients of technical assistance
through an advisory board do not duplicate or compete with TAG recipients. Overall, the
Committee recommends that EPA give strongest consideration to providing technical
assistance funding to an advisory board that represents the diverse community. In cases
where a community seeks both a TAG grant and advisory board technical assistance at the
68
-------
Chapter Four
single facility, the burden should be upon the group requesting the TAG grant to demonstrate
unique and special circumstances justifying a second grant to a community.
Amount of Funding
In conjunction with the above effort by regulated agencies to establish criteria for
demonstrating need for technical assistance, the Committee recommends that regulated
agencies work with other stakeholders to establish guidelines for targeted amounts of
funding. Although circumstances differ widely between the regulated agencies that have
advisory boards, including DOD, DOE, NOAA, and ATSDR, the Committee recommends
the following factors be considered in determining the appropriate amounts of administrative
and technical funding:
• The Committee anticipates that advisory board technical assistance funding
needs will be proportional to the level of cleanup assessment activities
occurring at a facility in a given year, assuming no significant new technical
challenges emerge.
• Greater amounts of funding should be provided in the early phases of the
federal facility cleanup process in recognition of the fact that technical
assistance needs will be greater during these early phases of the decision-
making process. Funding levels should be reassessed after site remedies have
been selected.
• Funding levels should fall as advisory board members become more
knowledgeable about the cleanup activities of the regulated and regulating
agencies.
Potential Funding Mechanisms
A number of federal statutes and regulations tightly control methods for regulated agencies to
provide funding to advisory boards. At a minimum, the rules require monies be carefully
tracked and accounted for through an established legal entity. The Committee recommends
that individual advisory boards and the regulated agency providing the funds should work
together to determine an appropriate mechanism for making administrative and technical
assistance funds available to the advisory board. Possible mechanisms identified by the
Committee include:
• Channeling the funds through a member of the advisory board that represents a
public interest and/or citizen-based organization that has nonprofit legal status
who would administer the funds in a timely and accountable manner;
• Channeling the funds through a nonprofit organization that is or has been
created for the explicit purpose of serving as a legally responsible fiduciary
and administrator of the funds;
69
-------
FFEKDC Final Report
• Channeling the funds through an independent entity, such as a university or
accounting firm, that is mutually agreed upon by the citizen members of the
advisory board and the regulated agency that is providing the funds;
• Channeling the funds through a state or local government agency that is both
capable and willing to administer the funds in a timely and accountable
manner; and
• Using a regulated or regulating agency, or their contractor to oversee the
direct disbursement of administrative and technical funds.
Under each of these options, the participating, newly created, independent, or local, state,
federal governmental entity would serve in a legally responsible fiduciary capacity,
administering the funds in a manner to be decided by the advisory board in collaboration
with the regulated agency.
XIX. Evaluating Advisory Boards
As advisory boards become more established, there is a need on the part of all those involved
in the advisory board process to evaluate the boards' effectiveness in enhancing the decision-
making process at federal facilities. An example of DOE's advisory board evaluation
process can be found in Box 23. The Committee encourages boards and those interacting
with the boards to first set realistic expectations during the early stages of their development.
Some boards have expressed a concern that before they are effectively able to participate in
the decision-making process at their facility, they must go through an education period and
trust-building process. This is similar to the contentious and difficult start-up processes of
advisory boards that advise private sector companies on cleanup issues. It should be noted
that some of those boards have been productive and valuable to the community and
companies, after having gone through a similar learning period.
Once a board is up and functioning, the Committee suggests that it establish a self evaluation
process to address the goals of the board at the various stages of its development.
The Committee acknowledges that facility level federal staff have strong incentives for
demonstrating the success of their advisory boards to headquarters and Congress. Setting
aside this need, however, or in addition to it, advisory boards should conduct their own
honest evaluation. The Committee suggests some general guidelines for developing an
evaluation process, recognizing that the advisory boards have varying specific goals that they
and the agencies they advise have set out for them, depending on what stage they are in the
development process.
In designing a specific evaluation process, it should be recognized that there are several
parties interested in the advisory board's work: the regulated and regulating agencies; the
board members themselves; and public stakeholders. Each interested party should be
represented in formulating the evaluation exercise.
70
-------
Chapter Four
Generally, the model approach outlined in
the Interim Report put forth the following
goals for the boards: to improve the quality
of and public support for environmental
decisions at the facility. The human and
fiscal resources devoted to the establishment
and functioning of an advisory board should
be viewed as an investment in
accomplishing these two basic goals.
Beyond these two basic goals, it is
important to evaluate the board's progress
towards meeting the site-specific goals
identified by the individual advisory board.
The Committee believes that a three-step
process may be useful in evaluating the
progress towards these goals. This process
includes:
• Articulating the goals the boards and
agencies have identified for
themselves;
• Identifying the actions and associated
milestones necessary to achieve
those goals; and
• Assessing the board's progress in
taking those actions and achieving its
goals.
Beyond this basic process, the boards may
individually decide to evaluate their work
on a more substantive basis. This is a
decision that should be made on a case-by-
case basis, by those involved in designing
the evaluation process. The following are
types of specific questions that may be
useful.
• Are members knowledgeable about
major issues, community views, and
the decision-making process? Is the
community knowledgeable about and
supportive of the actions of the board?
Box 23: Evaluation of DOE's Site-Specific
Advisory Boards
DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management (EM) is currently finalizing its design for
evaluating the Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB)
Initiative. The purpose of this early evaluation is to
enable the SSABs, facilities and DOE to capitalize on
the processes that are working well and to identify for
improvement the processes that are not working well.
The evaluation will be conducted at the eleven facilities
where SSABs have been established: Fernald, Hanford,
Idaho, Los Alamos, Monticello, Nevada, Oak Ridge,
Pantex, Rocky Flats, Sandia, and Savannah River.
The technical team responsible for the evaluation
includes three social researchers from Pacific Northwest
Laboratories and three independent consultants with
expertise in public involvement and evaluation. In
keeping with the spirit of public participation, the team
has worked in close consultation with the SSAB
Evaluation Steering Committee that includes the Federal
Coordinator and a SSAB representative from each
facility.
The Committee has worked to develop agreement on a
consolidated list of goals, on which the evaluation will be
based, and on the measures that will be used to assess
performance.
The proposed evaluation will include two components'
1) A survey of board members, DOE Site Area/Field
Office representatives, representatives from other
regulatory agencies involved with site activities, and
some members of the public; and 2) A self-evaluation of
SSAB Initiative activities and accomplishments (i.e.,
performance) specific to each site.
DOE envisages both components of the evaluation—the
survey and the self-evaluation—as an iterative process
to be linked to the boards' annual planning process.
The survey, conducted by DOE/HQ in the near term, will
use a mail-out questionnaire to gather information on
the perspectives of the various participants on SSAB
processes, relationships, and outcomes and provides an
independent assessment of the initiative across all sites.
The self-evaluation, conducted by each SSAB, provides
a means for each board to tailor the evaluation to its
own site context and needs through assessment of its
previous year's achievements and identification of
issues and goals for the upcoming year. Each
component of the evaluation is intended to contribute to
the board's planning process so that information from
both can be used to identify problems and successes
and enable the boards to benefit from their experience.
For more information, contact Don Beck, Office of Public
Accountability, DOE, (202) 586-7633.
71
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Has the advisory board process contributed to agreement about the cleanup process?
Were the recommendations useful in terms of resolving disputes between the public
stakeholders? Or is the advisory board itself useful for resolving disputes?
What major factors are impeding the progress of the advisory board? What can be
done to address these impediments?
Were the recommendations useful in terms of facilitating effective cleanups that
ensure protection of public health and the environment?
Can the advisory board point to cost reductions or other efficiencies resulting from
their recommendations?
Have agencies responded and adequately communicated actions to implement
recommendations and/or reasons for not implementing recommendations?
Box 24: Communication Efforts Among DOE
SSABs
Communication among EM SSAB members is
encouraged and strengthened through three vehicles:
EM Progress, Internet access and EM SSAB Chair
meetings. On a quarterly basis various EM SSAB
members submit stories to be published in the
newsletter EM Progress, The stories are printed in a
distinct SSAB section of the newsletter for distribution to
over 6,500 internal and external EM customers,
including SSAB members and chairpersons. Many
SSABs choose to share information on obstacles met
and overcome, Board operation, and Board
recommendations that have influenced EM decisions
and achieved significant cost savings. In an effort to
encourage electronic communication, EM recently
established an EM SSAB Home Page on the Internet's
World Wide Web. Individuals with Internet access can
use the page to find the latest information on SSAB
activities. Lastly, the Chairpersons of each local board
meet biannually with Headquarters and field
representatives to share lessons learned, resolve
potential conflicts, review upcoming actions, and plan for
the future needs. For more information, contact Don
Beck, Office of Public Accountability, DOE, {202) 586-
7633.
Does board membership continue to
reflect adequate diversity among
interested stakeholders?
Are education and training
opportunities for board members
adequate for the number and type of
issues that are coming before the
board?
Has the board accomplished its goals
such that termination of the advisory
board is appropriate?
Has the advisory board interacted
with other public stakeholders, and if
so how?
In addition to considering the above evaluation process, the Committee recommends that
boards pursuing an evaluation process consider the evaluation process developed by DOE, in
conjunction with advisory board members from all of its facilities.
72
-------
Chapter Four
XX. Networking Advisory Boards
The Committee believes that linking public
stakeholders and agencies across the country
may allow public stakeholders to share the
burden of extensive technical and legal
research that currently overwhelms many
public stakeholders. When advisory boards,
agencies, and regulators share information,
solutions can arise more quickly than when
parties work in isolation. Often, this
exchange of information can save time and
money for all involved. A network may
also be used as a resource for communities
and site level agency personnel looking for
new cleanup remedies and clarification on
environmental laws and regulations, pending
legislation and budget updates.
Some efforts are already underway to
establish communications between facilities
in regions of the nation, as well as across
federal agency complexes. Examples of
these efforts are included in Boxes 24-26.
Specifically, the Committee encourages
federal agencies to support efforts that will
assist communication between public
stakeholders at a national level. For
example, DOE guidance suggests that DOE
headquarters may play a role in establishing
communication among advisory boards
across facilities, through the use of an
electronic bulletin board.11 Efforts to
increase communication across facilities might
include:
Box 25: Bay Area Community RAB Caucus
With close to twenty federal facilities, there is a high
density of advisory boards in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Each RAB has its own individual challenges to
address, however, all share common concerns and in
some cases, problems.
In the Spring of 1994, Arc Ecology convened the San
Francisco and Monterey Bay Area RAB Community
Member Caucus to address shared concerns, provide
support for one another, monitor the activities of RABs
within the region and provide general information
sharing. The Caucus is a voluntary network of
cooperating community members from the Restoration
Advisory Boards of NAS Alameda, Oakland Fleet
Industrial Supply Center, Mare Island Shipyard, Hunters
Point Shipyard, Treasure Island Nava) Station, Moffett
Field Naval Air Station and Fort Ord.
The Caucus is facilitated by Arc Ecology, a San
Francisco headquartered nongovernmental organization
with over a decade of experience in the area of defense
cleanup and conversion. While meetings occur mostly
in Arc's offices, they occasionally rotate among the
participating RAB communities. The agenda is set by
the RAB Caucus itself with technical support, legislative
and budgetary analysis provided by local
nongovernmental organizational resources like the San
Francisco Bay Area Base Closures Environmental
Network (reuse), CAREER/PRO (national policy), and
Arc Ecology (technical & legal). Minutes are taken at
each monthly meeting and mailed to Caucus members.
Caucus members report back meeting discussions and
decisions at their individual RAB meetings. Caucus
members have begun to identify regionally shared RAB
concerns and are developing projects to address them.
The Bay Area RAB Community Member Caucus has
formed a strong collaborative community spirit to
address federal facility cleanup in the San Francisco
and Monterey Bay region and in October, 1995 began
to reach out to other RABs in the state to form a
California-wide RAB Caucus. For more information
contact Arc Ecology 415-495-1786.
• Providing information to existing networks;
• A national electronic clearinghouse where information is posted almost as it is
happening;
"DOE, Site-Specific Advisory Board Guidance, November 14, 1994, page 14.
73
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Box 26: "cpro,military" Conference on
Military Base Closure, Cleanup and
Conversion
This electronic clearinghouse was set up as a support
system for advisory board members. The goal of the
conference is to provide a "place" where people who
work on the many issues of federal facilities cleanup can
carry an ongoing dialogue, build alliances and discuss
solutions to the complex problems that surround this
procedure.
Since its inception in October of 1994, the cpro.military
conference has developed a list of subscribers that
include advisory board members, grassroots
environmental organizations, educators, regulators,
federal agencies and people involved- in cleanup in
Panama, Germany, and Canada. Conversation topics
include the workings of advisory boards, military RAB
guidance, environmental law, budget cuts, legislative
process, toxic substances, and other general information
sharing.
For example, in January of 1995 a conference
participant posted his concerns about the apparent
backsliding of the local base commander. The RAB and
local base had worked hard at establishing a
relationship where information was shared, concerns
could be voiced and trust was beginning to build. Within
hours of his posting he was contacted by a Navy official
in Washington, also a subscriber to the cpro.military
conference. The potential conflict was resolved within a
day or two and what might have been an incident that
could have brought everyone back to square one was
averted. Both the RAB members and Navy personnel
benefrtted, saving time and money. For more
information, contact Aimee Houghton, San Francisco
State University Urban Institute, (415) 904-7750.
• A newsletter that addresses the vast
array of issues in federal facility
cleanup;
• Making effective use of the media,
including the Internet, World Wide
Web, local access television, local
print media, and radio stations; and
• Other communication methods, such
as networks formed at national
meetings.
In creating any network, the network should
develop a charter that articulates its scope
and responsibilities. In addition, these
networks should be publicly accessible.
Conclusion
The Committee is encouraged to see that its
recommendations for the establishment of
advisory boards have been successful to
date. It is hoped that boards will continue
to be established and operate in a manner
consistent with the spirit of these
recommendations.
Advisory boards provide an important forum for stakeholders and agencies to explore the
complex problems associated with federal facility cleanups. In the next chapter, the
Committee has updated its recommendations on one of the more complex issues facing
federal facilities, that of setting priorities and allocating funding in a manner that is fair and
consistent with public stakeholder values.
74
-------
Chapter 5
CHAPTER 5
FUNDING AND PRIORITY SETTING
Introduction
As federal agencies continue to implement cleanup programs at an increasing number of
sites, and as these sites proceed through the cleanup process, the scope of the federal
government's cleanup obligations will mount. As sites proceed through the cleanup process
and there is a shift from cleanup studies into the more costly remedial construction phase, the
government's annual cleanup funding needs will also increase. The ability of each agency to
obtain sufficient funds to ensure execution of projected environmental cleanup activities in a
given year will be an important factor in determining the overall success of the federal
government's cleanup program.
The question of how to best set priorities and ensure adequate funding for federal facility
cleanups was on the forefront of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue
Committee's agenda before it was even chartered as a federal advisory committee (see
Appendix C). When the Committee released its Interim Report in February 1993 an entire
chapter, "Recommendations for Improving Accountability Through Enhanced Stakeholder
Involvement Throughout the Federal Budget Process," was devoted to this subject.
At the time the Interim Report was released it was anticipated that the overall federal budget
context would become increasingly constrained as the pressure to reduce the deficit mounted.
This expectation has come to pass and the federal budget will likely become even more
constrained in the future. As many agencies shift from a study and assessment mode to
actually conducting cleanups, the need for reconciliation between budget realities and
constraints and ever increasing cleanup needs and desires is now ever more apparent and
necessary.
The recommendations contained in the other chapters of the Committee's 1993 Interim
Report that addressed information dissemination and public stakeholder involvement,
particularly those that called for the establishment of SSABs, have been widely accepted and
implemented. In contrast, at least some of the recommendations contained in Chapter 4 of
the Interim Report were more controversial. These recommendations addressed two subjects:
consultation between the lead or regulated agency that is the recipient of cleanup funds and
responsible for conducting cleanup, and the regulating agencies and other stakeholders on
budget and funding matters; and allocation of cleanup funds in the event of a funding
shortfall.
The recommendations that addressed consultation issues were far less controversial than those
that addressed allocation issues. In fact, these recommendations have, with some exceptions,
been accepted and are in the process of being implemented, similar to the recommendations
contained in the other sections of the Interim Report. The Committee believes that the
75
-------
FFERDC Final Report
recommendations that addressed allocation issues, while admittedly complex, have been
widely misunderstood. As described more fully below, the Committee called, and continues
to call for, a flexible "fair share" approach to the allocation of funding shortfalls under
certain circumstances, rather than an inflexible pro-rata allocation of funding shortfalls as
many have interpreted the Committees recommendations.12
The recommendations contained in this chapter update and revise those contained in the
Interim Report. The primary objectives of the recommendations contained in this chapter are
to:
• promote a credible process for planning and conducting federal facility
cleanups at a reasonable pace that is protective of human health and the
environment; and
• address funding shortfalls in a timely, open, understandable and cost-effective
manner.
In order to meet these objectives, this chapter includes recommendations for a process
whereby stakeholders are informed of, and to the greatest extent feasible, participate in
important decisions that will affect the scope and schedule (i.e., pace) of work to be
performed at federal facilities.
In contrast to the recommendations contained in the 1993 Interim Report, these
recommendations focus even more strongly on building consensus, at the local facility level
on cleanup priorities and budgets at early stages of the budget process, rather than relying
solely on the expectation that the agencies responsible for conducting the cleanup will ask for
sufficient funds to meet their cleanup obligations and, if Congress does not appropriate
sufficient funds, the possibility of modifying cleanup schedules.
Background on the Nature of the Problem
.Funding and priority setting for federal facility cleanups involve a dynamic and complex
interplay between:
• cleanup studies and remedy selection decision making, including:
— initial site identification and assessments;
— remedial investigations and feasibility studies;
— future use determinations; and
— interim and final remedy selection;
12 Improving Federal Facility Cleanup, Report of the Federal Facilities Policy Group, October, 1995.,
pages 41-42.
76
-------
Chapter 5
• federal budgeting and appropriations;
• negotiation and implementation of formal cleanup agreements; and
• the stakeholder involvement process.
Several of the principles set forth in Chapter 2 address elements of this complex interplay,
including the role of negotiated cleanup agreements (Principle 8), risk assessments (Principle
9), future use determinations (Principle 11), cleanup studies (Principle 12), and stakeholder
involvement (Principle 14). The sections that follow explain aspects of the federal facility
funding and priority-setting process that were not addressed in the principles and are
necessary to understand the recommendations contained in this Chapter.
The Federal Budget Process
The connection between the federal budget process and the need to set priorities for federal
facility cleanups is an obvious one—funding constraints in combination with other factors, as
described below, require the sequencing of cleanup activities. Even if the resources available
for federal facility cleanups were unlimited, there would still be a need to set priorities.
However, the availability of funds plays an obvious and ever increasing role in determining
how cleanup priorities are established. Notwithstanding the obviousness of the connection
between budgeting, funding, and priority setting, it is a connection that is fraught with a high
degree of controversy and complexity.
The "Top-Down" Dimension
The federal budget includes both entitlement programs, such as Medicare, and discretionary
programs under which all federal facilities cleanup programs are funded. In the context of
the overall federal budget, the resources that are made available for federal facility cleanups
are often seen as competing for a shrinking pool of discretionary resources.
Discretionary funding is controlled through annual appropriations bills. The
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 limits
discretionary spending by placing caps on budget authority and spending for
each fiscal year. If appropriations would exceed the budget cap, the Act
establishes a procedure for across-the-board budget cuts. In recent years,
Congressional action, through adherence to budget caps on appropriations
bills, has limited the funding available for cleanup, as well as for many other
needs of the Federal government. Congress makes funding decisions among
many priorities, including the amount of funding to comply with Congressional
mandates to agencies to meet environmental cleanup requirements. Thus,
unlike non-Federal and private sector entities, the financial ability of Federal
77
-------
FFERDC Final Report
facilities to comply with Congressional mandates is determined by the
President and Congress.13
This "top down" dimension to the overall federal facility cleanup decision-making and
priority-setting process manifests itself in the issuance of agency, department, or program
budget "targets" and out year budget projections by OMB. These OMB budget targets and
projections play a very important role in the overall federal facility cleanup decision-making
and priority-setting process.
The top-down dimension is made even more complicated by virtue of the fact that each
Administration handles the budget building process differently. Furthermore, even within a
given Administration, OMB may treat one agency differently than another, or treat the same
agency differently over the course of an Administration, in terms of the level and scope of
cleanup programs and activities to which budget targets apply.
The Cyclical Dimension
In addition to the top-down dimension, another important feature of the federal budget
process is the highly complex cyclical nature of the process. At any one moment in time,
three budget cycles are occurring in an overlapping and simultaneous fashion. This includes
the current execution fiscal year (FY), the upcoming fiscal year (FY+1), sometimes referred
to as the budget year, and the following fiscal year (FY+2), sometimes referred to as the
planning year. When all goes well, each cycle takes approximately two years to complete
from beginning to end. When there are continuing resolutions, such as is the case for the
FY96 budget, the process can take longer. The President's budget also includes budget
projections that cover the five-year period beyond the year for which the budget is being
produced.
The federal budget process when viewed in its totality is a highly complex process, but it can
be simplified to its most basic features, as is done in Figure 2. As this chart shows, the fall
of any given year marks the beginning of the budget cycle for FY+2, the middle of the
budget cycle for FY +1, and the end of the budget cycle for the immediately upcoming fiscal
year (FY). As will be discussed later, the cyclical nature of the budget process has
implications for regulator and public stakeholder involvement in budget related decisions.
The "Bottom-up" Dimension
Added to these top-down and cyclical dimensions is a very important "bottom-up" dimension.
This dimension starts at the local facility and affected community level and includes not only
budget formulation and submission, but the site assessments and remedy selection decisions
that form the basis of budget estimations and submissions. It is also important to note that
^Improving Federal Facility Cleanup, Report of the Federal Facilities Policy Group, October,
1995, page 32.
78
-------
n
*
CM
I
fc
fc"
0
O
O
O)
C
D
CD
s
"s
0
T3
0
^
t
i
>-
L.
(1
2
I
I
*•
8
°!5*
•o 2 •?
L5^£
C
E
o
To
o
c
(0
•o
c
(0
f^
Dnation, OMB apporth
Mid -Year Allocation
Adjustments Made
by Agencies
^
E
)
5
u
5
•a
>
in
re
D
1
)
1
3
1
i
111
l?lf
I
0)
W
I
Q.
2
Q.
a
m
in
a>
o
•a
0)
0)
I
en
to
u
I
0)
(A
O
•o
CO
O
0)
O)
o
§
tn
•R
0)
I
en
a)
u
i
TJ
!
CB
U
'EL
^
CO
a
-------
FFERDC Final Report
the "top-down" dimension comes full circle and completes itself when execution occurs at the
local facility and affected community level. In its 1993 Interim Report, the Committee spent
a considerable amount of time addressing the "bottom-up" dimension of the overall federal
facility cleanup decision-making and priority-setting process. The Committee's
recommendations on improving information dissemination, stakeholder involvement through
the use of SSABs and other means, and improved consultation and sharing of information on
federal facility cleanup budget matters were all intended to build the "infrastructure" that is
necessary to support and enhance this "bottom-up" dimension and to improve execution at
the conclusion of the "top-down" dimension.
Environmental Requirements and the Role of Executive Order 12088 and Negotiated
Cleanup Agreements
Federal agencies must comply with certain laws and rules and regulations when implementing
cleanup programs and activities. The laws that most frequently come into play include
CERCLA (popularly known as Superfund), RCRA and applicable state law, and the Federal
Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) which waives the sovereign immunity of federal facilities
for enforcement actions under RCRA. In contrast to a budget-driven, top-down perspective,
compliance with these laws is required but the pace of this compliance may be negotiable.
Executive Order 12088
In the development of the consensus that led to the 1993 Interim Report, as well as the
consensus the led to the production of this Final Report, the Committee has spent
considerable time discussing the role of Executive Order (EO) 12088 in the overall federal
facility cleanup decision-making and priority-setting process. This executive order has, both
a "bottom-up" and, because it is an executive order, "top-down" quality.
EO 12088, which was issued by President Carter in 1978, requires the heads of federal
agencies to request sufficient funds in their budget submissions to OMB to meet all "pollution
abatement" requirements. It is commonly understood that this executive order was intended
to ensure that OMB was fully cognizant of such requirements as the President's budget was
being developed and finalized.
Since this executive order was issued before the passage of CERCLA and before most
federal agency cleanup programs were put into place, it was necessary to clarify its
relationship to federal facility cleanup activities. In a 1983 letter to Congressman John
Dingell, and then again in a 1991 letter to DOE, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials stated
that EO 12088 can be extrapolated to cleanup requirements. Since this order cannot be
subjected to judicial review and the President has not issued any orders that countermand the
DOJ opinion, the Committee acknowledges that this executive order applies to federal facility
cleanups, including those requirements that are specified as milestones set forth in negotiated
cleanup agreements.
80
-------
Chapter 5
All of the major pieces of federal environmental legislation which have been created over
decades of bipartisan effort (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, Safe
Drinking Water Act) contain provisions waiving the federal government's sovereign
immunity from the application of analogous state laws, which are typically required for a
state to be delegated federal authorities. EO 12088 is a Presidential directive that helps to
ensure that Executive Branch decision makers are informed of the cost of complying with
these laws. This is consistent with the principle that the federal government should comply
with environmental laws in the same manner as private entities, as is recommended by the
Committee in Principles 1 and 4 of Chapter 2.
The Committee recognizes, however, that federal agencies are also required by OMB
directives to submit budgets that do not exceed predetermined funding levels (i.e., budget
targets). In addition many of the requirements that compete with cleanup funds are also
required by executive orders, and federal law, as well as domestic and foreign policy
objectives established by the President.
Although there are differing views on the Committee of the relative standing or importance
of EO 12088 compared to these other requirements, the Committee acknowledges that federal
agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to satisfy all of these requirements within either
OMB funding targets or the amounts appropriated by Congress. In crafting the
recommendations that follow, the Committee has tried to provide some balance between the
pressures on federal agencies to satisfy the myriad of policy objectives and legal
requirements.
These conflicting requirements come to a head at the level of the agency head. This is the
person who is required to submit budgets within the budget targets established by OMB that
comply with all legal environmental cleanup requirements, and other federal laws, executive
orders, and domestic and foreign policy objectives established by the President. Agency
heads often pass this conflict on to agency comptrollers and national program managers,
upon whom they must rely when formulating and executing their agencies' budgets.
In addition to OMB targets, agencies have direct relationships with the Congressional
committees that ultimately appropriate the funds to meet their cleanup obligations. These
relationships typically entail communications between the relevant committee and agency at
the early stages of the budget process as to expected funding levels, as well as decisions at
the end of the budget process which actually set the funding levels. Members of Congress
expect agency heads and national program managers to take these projected funding levels
seriously.
Negotiated Cleanup Agreements
In the case of sites or facilities that are on the CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL),
legally mandated cleanup requirements manifest themselves in negotiated cleanup agreements
that are required by Section 120(e) of CERCLA. Although enforceable cleanup agreements
are not required under CERCLA until after a Record of Decision (ROD) has been signed, in
81
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Principle 8 of Chapter 2, the Committee recognizes the important role that negotiated
agreements play in establishing and maintaining a credible federal facility environmental
cleanup program, and as a mechanism for setting cleanup priorities and schedules even
before an issuance of a ROD. The Committee also acknowledges that where regulatory
authorities of states and EPA overlap, as they do at many federal facilities (e.g., the so-
called RCRA/CERCLA "interface"), negotiated cleanup agreements can play a very
important role in coordinating those authorities to minimize differing, inconsistent or
conflicting requirements (see Principle 8 in Chapter 2).
While the Committee believes that negotiated cleanup agreements can play an important role
in establishing and maintaining a credible federal facility environmental cleanup program, it
is aware of criticisms about negotiated cleanup agreements. These criticisms include
statements that negotiated cleanup agreements are "unwieldy" and frequently contain
"unrealistic schedules" with cleanup milestones extending years or decades into the future.
The Committee believes most of these criticisms to be unwarranted and based on
misperceptions of the agreements. The Committee attempts to address these criticisms and
the tension between the importance of negotiated cleanup agreements and the requirements of
the federal budget process in the recommendations on "Budget Consultation and Milestone
Setting" that are found below.
The Importance of Strategic Planning, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, and Project Baselines
Notwithstanding the criticisms of negotiated cleanup agreements, the Committee believes that
significant progress has been made in recent years to establish credible environmental
cleanup programs and agreements that are based on:
• facility-specific strategic plans that are developed and agreed upon by regulating and
regulated agencies, and other stakeholders;
• life-cycle cost analysis of cleanup projects and activities; and
• "baselines" that reflect the agreed upon technical requirements, schedule, and cost of
cleanup projects.
Strategic plans typically include a "vision" that guides cleanup efforts at individual facilities
toward the achievement of statutory, regulatory and other agreed upon goals that have been
developed through consultation with regulators and participation of other stakeholders.
At most facilities, life-cycle cost analysis is applied to a project baseline that is based not
only on cost information, but technical and schedule considerations as well. The technical
component of the project baseline considers factors such as design requirements and
performance standards. The schedule component of the project baseline considers factors
such as the logic used for sequencing activities, constraints, assumptions, duration and
resources. The cost component of the project baseline considers factors such as direct and
indirect costs, management reserve, and cost contingency. The project baseline is established
82
-------
Chapter 5
according to a set of planning assumptions that should be developed in consultation with
public stakeholders and agreed to by regulators and regulated agencies.
The Committee believes that the use of these three tools have significantly improved the
quality of the cleanup decisions in general and provided for improved consultation with
regulators and involvement of other stakeholders. This belief has affected the Committee's
recommendations that follow.
The Importance of Stakeholder Involvement
The importance of adequate and meaningful stakeholder involvement has been stressed
throughout both the Committee's 1993 Interim Report and this Final Report. Success for
improved decision making and building crucial public support hinges on involvement of
public stakeholders in the decision-making process. For the purposes of this chapter, suffice
it to say that without the support of regulators and affected communities on cleanup priorities
and schedules, the agencies responsible for conducting cleanups are not likely to succeed in
accomplishing the cleanup tasks that are needed, nor in obtaining the funds that are necessary
to accomplish the task.
It is important to note, however, that similar to negotiated cleanup agreements, stakeholder
involvement is at different stages of development at different facilities. This is especially
true with regard to the establishment and utilization of advisory boards. It is also true that
trust issues are more pronounced at some facilities in comparison to others. Notwithstanding
these differences, the recommendations that follow are premised on proactive and strong
efforts to involve regulators and other stakeholders in the intricacies of the federal budget
process as it relates to the establishment and implementation of agreed-upon cleanup
priorities.
Summary of the Problem
In summary, the basic problem that is addressed in this chapter of the Committee's report is
that a tension exists among the requirements of the federal budget process and the federal
facility cleanup decision-making and priority-setting process. The recommendations outlined
below include a number of checks and balances that the Committee believes will help
reconcile the potential conflict between budget targets on the one hand and cleanup
requirements and schedules on the other.
Given the complexities inherent in the nexus between the various steps in the cleanup
decision-making process, the federal budget process, the negotiated cleanup agreement
negotiation and implementation process, and the stakeholder involvement process, the
following recommendations are not intended to specify a detailed or prescriptive approach to
priority setting. Instead they point to some key principles, features and options that the
Committee believes will help to enhance trust, establish reasonable, credible and successful
environmental cleanup programs, and reconcile the inherent conflict between "budgets versus
requirements."
83
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Recommendations
I. Overview
In recognition of the important linkage between funding availability and work to be
performed, the Committee strongly recommends the active engagement of public stakeholders
in the cleanup decision-making process. This applies to all decisions regarding scope,
timing, and priority of activities to be performed, and to the greatest extent feasible,
budgetary and funding matters. Where public stakeholders cannot provide direct input to the
decision-making process because of tuning constraints or other reasons, they should be
advised of relevant decisions so that they retain confidence in federal agencies' efforts.
To involve public stakeholders in a meaningful manner, advisory boards at federal facilities
should be used wherever they exist. In all instances, broad community involvement efforts,
as described in Chapter 3, should be used.
In addition to meaningful stakeholder involvement, federal facility cleanups depend upon a
high degree of communication, cooperation, and consultation between regulated and
regulating agencies. Furthermore, the success of federal facility cleanups requires that where
multiple regulators exist (e.g., state, federal, tribal) they work together to eliminate or
minimize imposing differing, inconsistent, or conflicting requirements.
The partnerships and relationships that have evolved during recent years are critical because
they allow for public stakeholder and regulator "buy-in" to cleanup priorities and schedules
during the early stages of the budget cycle. This early buy-in can be critical during later
stages of the budget process in the event that a funding shortfall occurs and priorities need to
be reestablished.
The recommendations contained in this chapter are designed to apply where negotiated
agreements are required by law or otherwise should be used, as well as in instances where
negotiated agreements are not appropriate.
II. Pre-appropriation Priority Setting of Cleanup Activities
Prior to appropriation of funds by Congress to an agency and the allocation of those funds to
facilities and/or sites, a complex set of activities and interactions occurs that involve
regulated and regulating agencies, and other stakeholders. These activities and interactions,
which result in the development of cleanup budgets for sites, facilities and agencies, involves
prioritizing and scheduling cleanup activities.
The Committee has developed a set of recommendations for a process to set priorities in a
consistent, equitable, and understandable manner prior to appropriation and allocation of
funds. These recommendations are intended to allow stakeholders to be informed of, and to
84
-------
Chapter 5
the extent feasible, participate in important decisions that will affect the scope and timing of
work to be performed at federal agency facilities.
A. Prioritize Activities Rather than Sites or Risk
The Committee recommends that priority setting at the facility level should not be limited to
prioritizing the relative risks posed by site contamination but should go further to include
prioritizing the activities that are designed to clean up the contamination. Thus, any effort
to sequence cleanup priorities as needing to be done now, sooner, or later, or as being of
high, medium or low priority, or whatever other priority-setting scheme is utilized, should
ultimately focus on setting priorities for cleanup action rather than setting priorities based on
the relative risks posed by site contamination. Relative risks will no doubt have a bearing on
the setting of priorities for cleanup activities but, as described more fully below as well as in
Principle 9, relative risk rankings should not become the de facto priorities. Other factors
warrant careful consideration in addition to risk. Furthermore, as current law provides
[CERCLA 120(e)(3)], required activities should not be put off indefinitely. Thus, even
"low" ranking activities will require action as soon as practicable.
B. "Risk Plus Other Factors" Priority Setting
For some people the term "risk management" is understood to mean the consideration of
factors in addition to risk to human health and the environment when making decisions about
how to best manage or reduce such risks. For others, risk management still connotes too
strong of an emphasis on human health risk. In other words, in certain instances factors that
may have very little to do with human health risk may become the overriding factors in
setting cleanup priorities. For this reason, the Committee has come to use the term "risk
plus other factors" to refer to the consideration of risk to human health and the environment
along with other important factors.
The Committee supports efforts of the regulated agencies to use risk-based priority setting to
build their cleanup budgets, as long as priorities are set with the agreement of the regulators
and in consultation with other stakeholders. In general, high-priority activities should be
funded before medium-priority activities, and those should be funded before low-priority
activities.
The assignment of priority levels to all agreed-upon activities or sites should provide the
basis for reconsidering out year milestones and altering programmatic plans when
appropriated funding does not match requested levels and when the affected facility has
demonstrated it is developing and implementing cost savings measures. This applies to
increases as well as decreases. Thus, even when agencies must respond quickly to
Congressional actions, their changes should reflect regulator and public stakeholder input, to
the greatest extent possible.
Even within the realm of human health and environmental risks, one of the most important
functions of consultation and stakeholder involvement is to weigh the relative significance of
85
-------
FFERDC Final Report
dissimilar health impacts. For example, even if the "experts" agree that a specific chemical,
as delivered to a specific population, cause N cancers, M miscarriages, and Q learning
disabilities, there needs to be a process by which the seriousness of each problem is agreed
upon. While the risk evaluation may indicate potential impacts, it does not indicate what
action to take.
As stated in Principle 9, the Committee believes that in many circumstances "risk to human
health and the environment is an important and well-established factor that should continue to
be a primary consideration in federal facility cleanup decision making, including setting
environmental cleanup priorities and enforceable milestones." Principle 9 goes on to state
that "other factors warrant consideration in setting cleanup priorities and enforceable
milestones."
In this section, the Committee wishes to elaborate on these points by stating that risk to
human health, or its corollary, protection of human health is, at many sites, only a starting
point for establishing cleanup funding priorities. The Committee also believes that in many
other instances protection of the environment is the appropriate starting point for establishing
cleanup funding priorities. Furthermore, in other cases, protection of human health and the
environment is the appropriate starting point for establishing funding priorities for cleanup.
The Committee strongly recommends that in those instances where protection of the
environment is not used as a starting point for establishing cleanup funding priorities, it
should be considered as one of the factors that are listed below.
Regardless of whether protection of human health or the environment (or both) is the starting
point for establishing cleanup funding priorities, the Committee affirms that numerous other
factors must be considered in setting priorities for sites and projects. As set forth in
Principle 9 in Chapter 2 the factors listed below should be considered in setting cleanup
priorities:
a) cultural, social, and economic factors, including environmental justice
considerations;
b) potential or future use of the facility, its effect on the local communities'
economy, vitality, livability, and environmental quality;
c) the ecological impacts of the contamination and the proposed action to address
it (in those instances where protection of the environment is not used as a
primary basis for establishing cleanup funding priorities);
d) intrinsic and future value of affected resources (e.g., groundwater and
fisheries);
e) pragmatic considerations such as availability and continuity of skilled workers,
labs, cleanup contractors to complete the activity or the feasibility of carrying
86
-------
Chapter 5
out the activity in relation to other activities at the facility (i.e., capacity and
work flow logic), or both;
f) the overall cost and cost effectiveness of a proposed activity and especially the
relative risk reduction value obtained by the proposed expenditure;
g) making land available for other uses, recognizing that land uses may change
over time;
h) the importance of reducing infrastructure costs (e.g., $300 million is spent
each year to monitor tanks at Hanford and $130 million is spent each year at
Rocky Flats to safeguard special nuclear material);
i) the availability of new or innovative technologies that might accelerate or
improve the ability to achieve a permanent remedy;
j) Native American treaties, statutory rights (e.g., American Indian Religious
Freedom Act), and trust responsibilities;
k) regulatory requirements and the acceptability of the proposed action to
regulators and other stakeholders;
1) supporting accomplishment of other high priority agency objectives;
m) life-cycle costs; and
n) actual and anticipated funding levels (the congressional budget appropriation,
OMB apportionment, allotments of funds to agencies or departments and the
facilities, and out year funding targets).
With regard to anticipated funding levels, the Committee recognizes the constraints on
federal agencies to submit budget within OMB target levels, and also recognizes that there
may be circumstances that warrant challenging those constraints.
The Committee believes that there is no widely accepted mechanism for integrating human
health and environmental risk with other important factors. However, the Committee
recommends, for a risk plus other factors prioritization system to work, the following
conditions must be met:
• For the prioritization of cleanup actions or studies, the application of standards to
remedy selection and the actual selection of remedies should occur independent of the
risk ranking. That is, prioritization should only relate to the timing of the action, not
how protective the remedy will be.
87
-------
FFERDC Final Report
• There must be confidence, among all stakeholders, in the approach for categorizing
sites based on relative risk and, similarly, the risk reduction potential of proposed
cleanup activities.
• There should also be confidence, among all stakeholders, in the methodology used to
assign priorities once risk rankings are made.
• As part of priority setting, the general range of costs associated with a cleanup
activity should be known and generally agreed upon.
• The system of assigning risk levels and setting priorities should be transparent and
easily understood. That is, it should not only be understood by "experts" and others
who are fully immersed in the process, but by members of the public, the press, and
elected officials.
While the Committee believes that agencies should issue general guidance on the types of
factors to be considered and how they should be applied to priority setting, ultimately, these
agencies, in consultation with public stakeholders at each facility, must decide the mix and
relative importance of these factors in setting priorities. Each agency should ensure that its
approach is understood and utilized within the agency, by regulators and public stakeholders,
and by all facilities in a similar manner to provide for comparability among facilities. In
many cases, the best way to ensure that everyone is playing by the rules is to review or
evaluate rankings after they are made but before funding allocation decisions are made. In
short, the Committee does not believe there is a single best methodology for applying the
factors outlined above. Rather, regulating and regulated agencies and public stakeholders at
facilities must determine what approach will work best for them.
The Committee does recommend, where possible, agencies and other stakeholders should
define, up front, the factors in addition to protection of human health and/or environment
that might influence priority setting. Then, when priorities are set, participants in the
process should identify which specific factor or factors have caused a site or activity to be
assigned a priority category. Participants in the decision-making process might also consider
whether each factor moves or "bumps" activities from one priority level to the next level, or
are so significant that they "trump" the risk determination.
The evaluation of risk and the establishment of temporal priorities is a dynamic process.
Both risk rankings and priorities should be reviewed regularly by all participants, to take into
account new information and even new attitudes and perspectives. Each regulated agency
should establish, in consultation with other stakeholders, procedures for reopening rankings
and priorities outside of the normal budget cycle, should significant new information be
discovered.
No matter what specific prioritization scheme an agency adopts, its success depends upon
agreement on the process, up front, by all stakeholders. If there is broad confidence in the
88
-------
Chapter 5
process, then cleanup progress will be much less subject to delays and other transactional
costs historically characteristic of major federal facility cleanup projects.
C. Budget Consultation and Milestone Setting
As the Committee has stated elsewhere in this report, stakeholder confidence in agency
cleanup programs is contingent upon continued progress on cleanups and an understanding
that an agency has made every effort to plan for, seek funding for, and execute its cleanup
obligations. In Principle 8 of Chapter 2, the Committee recognizes the importance of
negotiated cleanup agreements in accomplishing this objective.
In this section, the Committee sets forth recommendations for a budget consultation and
milestone-setting process that the Committee believes can help accomplish this objective. In
making these recommendations, the Committee is not recommending that all existing
negotiated cleanup agreements should be renegotiated. However, where all parties agree
that existing agreements may benefit from this approach, or where agreements are not yet
established, the Committee believes a process such as that recommended below should be
considered for inclusion in the agreement at the option of the parties to the agreement.
Moreover, the recommended process below reflects a delicate balance and also must be
carefully balanced with other elements of the agreements (to be negotiated for each site),
which are intended to work together as a whole.
Two of the important features of this process, which is sometimes referred to as a "rolling
milestone" process,14 are: 1) for the regulated and regulating agencies to determine the
cleanup work that is required to be performed in consideration of. but not necessarily "driven
by," budget targets; and 2) to do so in a timeframe that coincides with the federal budget
process.
While implementation of the budget consultation and milestone concept described below will
vary to some extent from one site to the next because identification and review of milestones
is a "bottom-up" process that involves public stakeholders, regulators and site personnel in
setting site-specific priorities, the Committee believes that the following recommendations are
generally applicable:
1) When milestones are first being established using the process recommended below,
the regulating and regulated agencies, in consultation with other stakeholders, should
use the strategic plan, life cycle cost analyses, and project baselines to establish
agreed upon project end dates, out year milestones, and near term milestones:
• Project end dates should be established for major portions of the cleanup or
completion of cleanup of the entire facility. The Committee recognizes that
14 The Committee has purposely not used the term "rolling milestone" process because there have been
many proposals that are called rolling milestone processes that differ from the Committee's recommendation.
89
-------
FFERDC Final Report
many of these dates will be a number of years in the future. By nature, these
dates have the most degree of uncertainty. Nonetheless, project end dates
serve an important function in establishing the overall pace of cleanup,
including the setting of near term milestones.
• Out year milestones should be established for completion of major cleanup
activities critical to the completion of the project for the tune period beyond
the budget development year until the project end date. Since these milestones
are beyond the "planning" year (FY+2), they are not included in the current
budget request, but are important to out year fiscal planning.
• Near term milestones are critical for both budget development and to show
commitment by regulated agencies for cleanup activities that will occur in the
next fiscal year (i.e., the "budget" year — FY+1) and the year for which the
budget is being developed (i.e., the "planning" year — FY+2).
In order to ensure a sustained commitment to a credible environmental cleanup
program that is protective of human health and the environment, and a reasonable and
defensible pace of cleanup, the Committee agrees that all parties should work together
to achieve the agreed upon near term milestones, out year milestones, and project end
dates. This includes making good faith efforts to obtain sufficient funds to
accomplish the agreed upon milestones, target dates, and end dates.
The parties expect that projected end dates, out year milestones, and near term
milestones will be established in full consultation with public stakeholders, and will
consider the best available site information and projected funding levels. The
Committee recognizes that near term milestones have more significance in building a
budget. Therefore, the Committee believes that near term milestones, out year
milestones and project end dates should not be changed without the agreement of the
parties, in consultation with public stakeholders. Disagreements on proposed date
changes for any milestones will be subject to any agreed upon dispute resolution
process.
2) On an annual basis, thereafter:
a) Prior to the end of a fiscal year, evaluate the status of all activities that were
expected to be completed during the current FY, with particular emphasis on
those activities that are critical to meeting near term milestones for the
upcoming two fiscal years (FY+1 and FY+2);
b) As soon as possible after Congress appropriates, OMB "apportions," and
agencies "allot" cleanup funds (typically at the start the new fiscal year in
October or November), the parties to the negotiated agreement should
determine if planned work can be accomplished with allotted funds. In the
90
-------
Chapter 5
event of an appropriation shortfall, the parties should, before modifying or
extending milestones, determine if planned work can be accomplished through:
• rescoping or rescheduling cleanup activities in a manner that does not
cause previously agreed upon near term milestones and out year
milestones and project end dates to be missed;
• developing and implementing new cost-saving measures.
A determination by the parties to modify or extend a near term milestone
should be based upon consultation with public stakeholders, and if necessary,
negotiation between regulating and regulated agencies in light of risk plus
other factors, which include consideration of funding allocations. If agreement
cannot be reached:
• regulators will retain their authority to determine whether to approve a
request to modify or extend existing milestones; and
• regulated agencies retain their right to invoke dispute resolution under
the terms of the negotiated cleanup agreement.
c) After OMB issues budget targets to agencies, and agencies issue budget
guidance to intermediate levels and/or facilities, in light of the FY and FY+1
milestones, funding circumstances, and all of the other "risk plus other
factors" listed above, determine whether the previously agreed upon project
end dates and out year milestones for FY+2 (i.e., what was FY+3 and has
become FY+2) should become near term milestones. The Committee agrees
that all previously agreed upon out year milestones and project end dates
should become near term milestones unless otherwise agreed to by all parties
in consultation with public stakeholders. The Committee also agrees that the
regulating and regulated agencies should make every effort to maintain a
credible environmental cleanup program within FY+2 budget targets. This
may call for:
• rescoping or rescheduling cleanup activities in a manner that does not
cause previously agreed upon near term milestones and out year
milestones and project end dates to be missed;
• developing and implementing new cost-saving measures.
However, as with step 2b:
• regulators will retain their authority to determine whether or not to
approve a request to modify or extend the near term milestones; and
91
-------
FFERDC Final Report
• regulated agencies retain their right to invoke dispute resolution under
the terms of the negotiated cleanup agreement.
d) If the regulating and regulated agencies, in consultation with public
stakeholders, are able to agree on FY+2 milestones that are achievable within
budget targets, the regulated agency will submit a cleanup budget to its
headquarters that reflects the agreement and the budget-consultation and
milestone-setting process has been completed for that year.
3) If the regulating and regulated agencies do not agree on the near term milestones that
should be established for FY+2, and this disagreement is the result of a discrepancy
between the cost of compliance with near term milestones required by the regulatory
agency and the budget targets imposed upon the regulated agency, this constitutes a
potential budget building shortfall. Under these circumstances, the Committee
recommends that there be full disclosure of this outcome at all levels of decision
making. The principles that should guide the regulated agencies in their efforts to
achieve full disclosure include:
a) All information to be provided in the effort to achieve full disclosure will be
provided in a manner that is consistent with existing laws15 and OMB
regulations and policies concerning the disclosure of budgetary information.
b) The regulated agency should prepare and make publicly available in a timely
manner supplemental reports that will accompany the cleanup budgets that the
agency submits from the facility level through the successive levels of its
organizational structure (if they exist) up to its headquarters, and from its
headquarters to OMB. "In a timely manner" means that this information is
made publicly available in a timeframe that to the greatest extent possible
allows for regulators and public stakeholders to influence each successive step
of the federal budget process.
c) The Committee agrees that the precise content and level of detail that is
contained in supplemental reports may vary from agency to agency, among the
successive layers of any particular agency, and from an agency to OMB. The
regulated agency in consultation with regulators and public stakeholders should
determine what information is needed to clearly communicate the consequences
of policy choices at these various levels by, at a minimum, identifying the
types of requirements and estimated costs associated with the requirements that
15The Committee notes that an agency's cleanup costs are currently disclosed in its: (1) annual financial
statement required under the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (131U.S.C. 3515) as contingencies -
unfunded environmental cleanup liabilities, (2) annual report to Congress required under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9620(e)(5)) as cost estimates and
budgetary proposals for interagency agreements. However, the type of cost information and level of cost detail
found in these documents varies with each agency.
92
-------
Chapter 5
could not be accommodated within the budget submission. (It should be noted
that the Committee does not intend that full disclosure of information
regarding disagreements on cleanup priorities between regulating and regulated
agencies should result in Congressional earmarking of cleanup funds for
specific cleanup projects.)
4) If the disagreement over the milestone or milestones covered in the supplemental
reports described above persists, the Committee acknowledges that both the regulated
and regulating agencies reserve their rights to invoke dispute resolution or take
enforcement action. Following any final decision that establishes enforceable
milestones that the regulated agency believes cannot be met due to lack of funding, in
order to enhance the possibility of meeting near term milestones, the regulated agency
should make a good faith effort to comply with such milestones by taking such actions
that may include but are not limited to:
• additional rescoping or rescheduling of other activities in a manner that does
not cause near term milestones, out year milestones, and project end dates to
be missed; and
• developing and implementing additional cost-saving measures.
If the regulated agency subsequently fails to meet a near term milestone, it retains the
right to assert any and all relevant defenses in response to an enforcement action
taken by the regulating agencies.
In combination with "risk plus other factors" priority setting, sound strategic planning, life
cycle cost analysis, and the use of project baselines, the Committee believes the budget
consultation and milestone-setting process described above will provide greater accountability
through consideration of fiscal constraints and full disclosure of any discrepancy between
budget targets and requirements. The Committee believes it will result in resources being
focused on high priority activities, despite fiscal and technical uncertainties.
As noted above, meaningful and effective stakeholder involvement in the establishment of
regulatory milestones is critical. Regulated and regulating agencies must be fully
knowledgeable of public stakeholder priorities and desires to establish milestones that are
supported. Public stakeholders, like regulators, must also be fully informed as to the budget
targets and constraints that are faced by the agency and facility managers who are responsible
for conducting the cleanup. Public stakeholders need to be provided with access to budget,
planning and risk information and the opportunity to participate in the program development
process. The means of accomplishing meaningful and effective stakeholder involvement in
setting cleanup priorities and milestones are described more fully in Chapter 3.
93
-------
FFERDC Final Report
III. Flexible Fair Share Allocation of Appropriations Shortfalls
As noted above, the recommendations contained in the Committee's 1993 Interim Report
called for a "flexible fair share" approach to the allocation of funding shortfalls caused by
insufficient appropriations. These recommendations were frequently misinterpreted as calling
for an inflexible pro-rata allocation of such funding shortfalls.
In this report, the Committee has recommended that priorities for cleanup activities be set
early in the federal budget building process and, where appropriate, be reflected as
enforceable milestones in negotiated cleanup agreements based on new and emerging
information and the balancing of a variety of important priority-setting factors (i.e., risk plus
other factors). The Committee believes these recommendations will greatly facilitate the
ability of all stakeholders to subsequently reassess and reset priorities and allocate resources
in an understandable, timely and equitable manner in the event of an appropriations shortfall.
The Committee believes that appropriation shortfalls necessarily result in at least two and, in
some cases, several significant levels or types of decision making. First, national program
managers and, for some agencies, agency personnel who have responsibility for multiple
facilities within a region or some other intermediate organizational level (e.g., major
commands, bureaus, etc.) need to allocate such funding shortfalls among facilities, regions,
or other organizational levels. Second, once funding shortfalls have been allocated to
facilities, regulating and regulated agencies, in consultation with public stakeholders, must
determine how best to allocate the shortfall at their facility.
For either of these types or levels of decision making, the Committee recommends that the
original proportion in the proposed cleanup budget should be the starting point for allocating
appropriations shortfalls at these various levels assuming that the budget was built: a) in
consultation with stakeholders; b) in consideration of regulatory agreements; and c) in
consideration of risk plus other factors. However, given the tremendous variation that exists
between agencies and agency cleanup programs with respect to their organizational structure,
the nature of the environmental problems that they are addressing, the stage of development
of their programs, etc., the Committee is not recommending a single unitary approach be
taken to address appropriation shortfalls. Rather, the Committee is recommending that each
agency or appropriate subset of an agency, in consultation with regulators and other
stakeholders, should establish and document an approach that adheres to the flexible fair
share features identified below.
The Committee recommends that a flexible fair share approach should:
1) to the greatest extent possible, rely on the preappropriation priorities established by
regulated and regulating agencies in consultation with stakeholders that are often set
forth as enforceable milestones in negotiated cleanup agreements;
2) continue to use the "risk plus other factors" approach at the local level when making
changes to previously agreed upon priorities;
94
-------
Chapter 5
3) strive to reward performance based on preestablished performance criteria or
standards (e.g., reward facilities that use resources efficiently and wisely);
4) be completed in a timely and efficient manner;
5) be conducted in consultation with public stakeholders at the earliest stages possible;
6) strive to reconcile the inherent tension between the "bottom up" and "top down"
dimensions of the federal facility funding and priority process;
7) strive to enhance credibility, trust, and productive working relationships;
8) result in equitable and fair allocations (which does not necessarily mean an equal or
pro rata allocation); and
9) include documentation of the allocation decisions that were made at each significant
organizational level.
IV. When Shortfalls Threaten the Ability to Meet Milestones
The Committee anticipates that the processes described in this chapter will significantly
reduce the number of situations in which budget building shortfalls are likely to lead to
missing milestones in negotiated cleanup agreements. It also recognizes that it is impossible
to develop detailed solutions that address all such conflicts in advance. Nevertheless, the
Committee believes that the best way to resolve these conflicts is to continue, as much as
possible, with the same approach and spirit recommended for earlier stages of the budget
process. Therefore, the Committee expects:
1) Regulating agencies will consider in good faith the adjustment of milestones
and other requirements. This is often the case now, particularly where
regulated and regulating agencies have developed working partnerships.
2) Representatives of regulated agencies will explore the availability of additional
funds within their agency budgets. Again, this is often the case now,
particularly when shortfalls are large and unexpected.
The Committee recognizes that its recommendations to mitigate conflicts between budget
building shortfalls and milestones might be interpreted, within both the Executive Branch
and Congress, as eliminating the legal pressure to complete cleanup activities. It is important,
therefore, to remind budget decision makers that budget decisions that "test the envelope" of
such "safety-valve" approaches threaten the operation of the entire federal facilities cleanup
process, and in particular the growing level of trust resulting, in part, from the Committee's
previous recommendations.
95
-------
FFERDC Final Report
V. The Importance of Stable, But Not Necessarily Level, Funding
The Committee believes that a stable funding base over the life of cleanup projects could
greatly facilitate pre-appropriation priority setting because it would provide regulated and
regulating agencies as well as other stakeholders with a greater degree of certainty and the
ability to plan and sequence cleanup activities and projects in an effective manner that is
consistent with agreed upon priorities.
The budget-consultation and milestone-setting process described above attempts to balance
fiscal constraints with the federal government's obligation to comply with environmental
requirements. It does so by first encouraging regulators and public stakeholders to factor
federal fiscal constraints into their priority-setting decisions at the facility level, both in terms
of establishing cleanup requirements initially, and in considering revisions to these
requirements in light of changing circumstances (including fiscal circumstances). The
Committee expects that initial efforts to close any gap between cleanup needs and funding
availability will be accomplished through the identification and implementation of cost
savings.
In recognition of the fact that facility level managers must comply with predetermined budget
constraints, consistent with Principles 1,2, and 4 in Chapter 2, the Committee believes that
if the regulators and other stakeholders have made a good faith effort but have not succeeded
in accommodating federal fiscal constraints in setting cleanup priorities, Executive Branch
decision makers above the facility level should request full funding for the environmental
cleanup requirements that could not be accommodated within the predetermined budget
constraints. Thus, while the process described above endorses full disclosure of any
discrepancy between the OMB budget targets and the funding needed to meet an agency's
cleanup obligations, the Committee believes the Executive Branch should make every effort
to prevent such a discrepancy from existing in the first place. As noted above, the
presentation of such information will be made in a manner that is consistent with laws and
OMB regulations and policies concerning the disclosure of budgetary information.
Conclusion
Building on previous chapters, this chapter contained a detailed set of recommendations about
how regulated and regulating agencies and other public stakeholders should set cleanup
priorities both in advance of and during the budget building process and how to allocate
funding shortfalls in the event of insufficient appropriations. All of these recommended
processes, as well as the more general community involvement recommendations contained
in previous chapters, will require enhanced and expanded capacity on the part of the key
participants in federal facility cleanup decision making. The next and final chapter of this
report provides specific recommendations on how to enhance the capacity of key stakeholders
in order to ensure effective implementation of the Committee's recommendations and,
through implementation, the development of reasonable and credible federal facility cleanup
programs.
96
-------
Chapter 6
CHAPTER 6
CAPACITY BUILDING
Introduction
The basic premise of this entire report is that federal facility cleanups will be more effective
and efficient if there is a working partnership between the regulated agency, the regulating
agencies, and the vast number of other stakeholders that are affected by environmental
contamination at these facilities. However, the effectiveness of most of the earlier
recommendations in this report regarding community involvement, advisory boards, and
including the other stakeholders in the budgeting and priority-setting process are dependent
on the various stakeholder groups having the capacity to participate effectively. This chapter
addresses the need to establish and maintain a level playing field to the greatest extent
possible. The Committee believes that the provision of resources for this purpose,
particularly if provided in a cost-effective manner, is likely to reduce overall cleanup costs in
the long run.
Continuing Problems
Despite the major changes during recent years in how the federal government involves
members of the public in the decision-making process, some groups frequently continue to be
left out of the process. In particular, the opinions and concerns of communities of color,
indigenous peoples, low-income communities, and local government officials often have not
been solicited, even though they have a substantial stake in the thoroughness and success of
the cleanup activities. The Committee recommends that federal, state, tribal, and local
governments take special efforts to consult with groups that have been commonly excluded
and to expand and develop their capacities to participate effectively in such processes, where
needed.
Further, many states and tribes, particularly in their regulatory roles, have expanded their
capacities tremendously in recent years to serve as partners in the federal facilities cleanup
process. In order for states and tribes to continue to play their important oversight role, it is
necessary to provide support to maintain this capacity. Also, many tribes in particular, need
to expand their capacities beyond current levels. Overseeing cleanup activities places a large
burden on many tribes that do not have the technical and financial resources available.
Finally, in some cases, the federal regulated and regulating agencies need to expand their
capacities to communicate and work with the full diversity of stakeholders affected by federal
facilities cleanups. In particular, some agency personnel have difficulty partnering with
communities of color and low-income communities due to unfamiliarity with social and
cultural values, as well as communication channels important to these community members.
97
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Box 27: The Definition of Environmental
Justice and Executive Order 12898
During its discussions, the Committee referred to the
following definition of environmental justice, which was
draft language of the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC): The fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race
ethnicity, culture, incomes and educational level with
respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and
policies. Fair treatment means that no population, due
to political or economic disempowerment, is forced to
shoulder the negative human health and environmental
effects of pollution or other environmental hazards. The
incorporation of environmental justice strategies at the
local, agency, and national levels in respect to the
cleanup process at federal facilities strives to: a) further
define and empower affected communities; b) level the
playing field in cases where communities of color and
low-income communities have had to bear a
disproportionate share of environmental and economic
degradation; and c) provide an effective vehicle for
historically disenfranchised communities to promote an
integrated and sustainable strategy for community
development.
Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-
Income Populations" directs federal agencies to develop
environmental justice strategies that identify and
address disproportionately high exposure and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their
programs, policies and activities on communities of color
and low-income populations. Strategies must consider
enforcement of statutes in areas with minority and low-
income populations, greater public participation,
improvement of research, and identification of
differential patterns of subsistence use of natural
resources.
For further information regarding the history of the
environmental justice movement and organization
contacts across the country, the Committee
recommends the following reference Ann Bastian and
Dana Alston, 'Writing Our Own History: New
Developments in the Environmental Justice Movement,"
Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Volume V,
Number 2/3, Fail 1994/Winter 1995, pp. 8-12. This
document can be obtained by calling Earth Island
Institute at (415) 788-3666.
Recommendations
I. Communities of Color, Indigenous
Peoples, and Low-Income Communities
The Committee encourages federal agencies
to seek the participation of the affected
communities of color and low-income
communities (including communities and
organizations of indigenous peoples) in their
cleanup activities for several reasons: first,
communities of color and low-income
communities have a right to participate in
federal facility cleanup decision making on
an equal footing with other public
stakeholders; second, Executive Order
12898, "Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations,"
requires it; and third, addressing or
integrating environmental justice concerns
will make decision-making more fair,
equitable, and therefore, more publicly
acceptable. These communities and
associated organizations may need
assistance from federal agencies to develop
the technical and analytical expertise. They
may also work in partnership with state and
local governments. Methods for developing
this support include:
• Supporting or developing training
and technical assistance programs to
improve the capability of community
and environmental justice
organizations, historically black
colleges and universities, tribal
colleges, and other minority
institutions to conduct health,
scientific, technical, policy and
regulatory analyses and studies.
98
-------
Chapter 6
• Involving historically black colleges and universities, the Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities, tribal colleges, and other special emphasis educational
institutions in environmental restoration technology research and development.
• Establishing education programs including internships, fellowships and scholarships
for students from communities of color and low-income communities at federal
research institutes and laboratories.
• Supporting national and regional forums for representatives of such communities to
share ideas and approaches for involving communities of color and low-income
communities more effectively in the decision-making process during federal facility
cleanups. The precise structure and design of such meetings should be determined
through a cooperative effort between regulated and regulating agencies and
representatives of communities of color and low-income communities.
II. Local Government
Local governments should have the opportunity to engage in a direct consultative relationship
with the regulated agency and with federal and state regulators. The value of the
consultation will be greatly enhanced if local governments maintain a capacity to understand
and track the complex issues involved in cleanup and waste management. This capability
will also be a resource to the advisory board that may be established for the community and
facility.
The Committee notes that local governments play an important role in the federal facility
cleanup process, which often stretches or exceeds the capacities of their communities. Local
governments in communities undergoing federal facility cleanup efforts often incur added
responsibilities because of the extensive and complex nature of these facilities and the
potential for transfer of federal property to local communities. Local government
responsibilities for federal facility cleanup include such tasks as analyzing and addressing the
impacts of federal actions on public safety and health; planning for and responding to
possible community-wide emergencies such as explosions or fires; developing local sewage
systems that are able to manage the very unique waste streams of many of these sites; and
managing transportation routes and ground and surface water resources. Local governments
also play a key role in planning for the reuse of property that is expected to be transferred
from the federal government to the local community.
The Committee recommends that the capacities of local government be established and
maintained to address these additional responsibilities. The Committee finds the need
particularly great for small, rural communities, which often do not have full-time, paid
political officials or technical staff, and may lack capacity for technical review given the
complex nature of these sites. It is hoped that increasing the capacities of local governments
will result in more effective and efficient clean-ups. An example of current efforts to build
local government capacity is noted in Box 28.
99
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Box 28: Building Local Government Capacity:
The Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight
Committee
The Tennessee Oversight Agreement—a formal
agreement between the State of Tennessee and DOE
signed in 1991—includes a provision to improve public
understanding of issues regarding the Oak Ridge
Reservation through a contractual agreement with local
governments.
In response, the City of Oak Ridge, and the Counties of
Anderson, Roane, Meigs, and Rhea formed the Local
Oversight Committee (LOG) as an independent nonprofit
corporation in 1992. Since then, the LOG has extended
membership to officials from the Counties of Knox and
Loudon to serve on the LOG Board of Directors, and ft
has established a 17-member Citizens Advisory Panel
(CAP).
The mission of the LOG is "to ensure, in a manner
consistent with a wise and effective use of public funds,
that the best interests of those local communities
adjacent to and downstream of the United States DOE's
Oak Ridge Reservation are protected to the maximum
extent possible during the continued operation of Oak
Ridge Reservation facilities and the environmental
restoration of the reservation and associated off-site
areas, such interests to include human health, the
environment and the local economic and social well-
being."
Through regional cooperation the LOC strives to
accomplish its mission four ways: as an education
organization, an advisory and oversight group, a
mechanism for community input into DOE decision
making, and as an entity to provide in-depth study of
salient issues. For more information, contact Amy
Fitzgerald, Executive Director, LOG, (423) 483-1333.
Due to the different nature of problems at
federal agency facilities, the Committee
recommends that regulated agencies and
states work with representatives of local
governments to determine general principles
to guide agency-local government
relationships, and the best appropriate
national and state mechanisms for
establishing and maintaining the capacities
of local government. To accelerate the
implementation of this effort, the
Committee urges the regulated agencies,
particularly DOE and DOD, to begin this
process of consultation as soon as possible.
Such a consultation process might include a
discussion of the following issues:
a. General principles guiding
consultative relationships with local
governments.
b. Eligibility. Establish clear criteria
for justification of need for
assistance. For example, small
communities are more likely to need
such assistance.
c. Sources of assistance. Where need
is established, local governments
might seek the following types of
assistance:
from federal agencies when those agencies are requesting services from local
governments to provide public health and safety, support emergency services,
sewage treatment, ground water and surface water protection;
from economic development agencies for local government planning assistance
when facilities are expected to be transferred from federal ownership;
from regulated agencies accomplishing cleanup for local government technical
review and analysis; and
from state agencies.
100
-------
Chapter 6
d. Assistance in applying for funding
mechanisms.
The Committee recommends that regulated
and regulating agencies undertake similar
consultative processes at the local level.
Such processes could address topics such as
the role of local government; assistance the
local government might provide in
informing the community of health and
safety concerns; and on-going mechanisms
for consultation among the local
government, regulating agencies, and the
regulated agency. One approach that has
proved useful is to have a written or formal
agreement that documents a process for
interactions. See Box 29 for an example of
where this approach has been successful.
Box 29: Nye County Formal Interactions
Process
Nye County, Nevada and DOE's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management entered into a formal
agreement that lays out the objectives and procedures
for interactions between the two parties. Nye County is
the host government for the characterization of Yucca
Mountain as a potential deep geologic repository for
high-level waste.
The key elements of the process agreed to in the four-
page April, 1991 Framework for Formal Interactions are:
regular interaction; senior management involvement;
and documentation of discussions. This approach
clarifies substantive expectations of both parties in a
simple, straightforward manner. It also provides a
process for addressing and resolving any potential
disputes between the two parties. The substantive
issues addressed under the framework included:
information sharing; socio-economic analyses; on-site
representation; and independent scientific investigations.
For more information, contact Phil Niedzielski-Eichner,
Energy Communities Alliance (703) 818-2434.
Through examining methods for improving
consultation with and enhancing the capacities of local government at both the national and
community levels, the Committee believes that local government officials can contribute to
the development of broadly accepted solutions, thus resulting in cost savings.
III. Tribal Governments
The federal facility cleanup efforts will continue to place significant demands on the
regulatory, administrative and management infrastructure of Indian tribes. In particular, the
cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex and DOD facilities in Indian country require tribes
to establish or strengthen systems to protect their treaty interests; to regulate the transport of
hazardous materials through their lands as provided by current laws and treaties; to ensure
access to and protection of sacred and cultural sites; and to protect the people, lands and
resources of the tribes from the effects of the federal facility cleanup activities.
However, the federal facility cleanup effort also presents opportunities for tribes to reclaim
their lands, for employment in cleanup activities, and for other business and institutional
participation in all phases of the federal facility cleanup program. DOE and EPA have
promulgated tribal policies that acknowledge that treaties, statutes and federal Indian policy
obligate those agencies to consult and work with Indian tribes on a government-
to-government basis. The Committee recognizes that, consistent with Executive Order
12875, such treaty and trust obligations extend to all agencies of the federal government.
An additional obligation is that such consultation and participation by Indian tribes should be
knowing and informed. These obligations form the basis for building tribal capacity.
Consistent with the government-to-government relationship that exists between the federal
101
-------
FFERDC Final Report
government and Indian tribes, the Committee recommends that specific tribal capacity
building programs be negotiated by the relevant federal agencies and Indian tribes. The
Committee further recommends that, consistent with the federal-Indian tribe trust
relationship, the identification of relevant, federally recognized Indian tribes should be made
using broad criteria.
IV. State Governments
Generally, state government regulators are responsible for overseeing cleanup activities on a
day-to-day basis and have a fundamental interest in the cleanup and reuse of federal facilities.
The communication and consultative role of the states exists with both federal facilities and
local communities. Historically, states have been involved with, or assisted in, many aspects
of the very complex development of cleanup standards, corrective action, and approval of
cleanup decisions. States are also instrumental in establishment of advisory boards and their
operation. In addition, some states also approve or certify the "finding of suitability to lease
or transfer" federal property at non-NPL sites.
As protectors of human health and the environment, states provide guidance and assistance to
the federal agencies responsible for conducting cleanup and assurance to local communities
that sites have been safely cleaned up. In many instances consultation with states has
resulted in significant financial savings in federal cleanups while still being protective of
public health.
While there has been litigation between states and the federal government in the past, many
issues have been resolved through open communication and consultation. Even under
enforcement situations the consultative nature of the state role is still important. However, in
fiscally conscious times, it cannot be assumed that states will be able to continue to
participate in this process unless they are adequately funded. In non-federal cleanups the
state role is typically funded through cost recovery in enforcement action, direct payment or
user fees in voluntary programs, and federal program grants in such as RCRA. Defense and
State Memoranda of Agreement (or DSMOA) grants serve a similar purpose for DOD
cleanups.
The Committee recommends that in order to maintain the capability of the states in their role
of oversight and ensuring protection of human health and the environment that the DSMOA
grant program continue to be fully funded. If funds to support state participation in federal
cleanups through DSMOAs are significantly reduced or eliminated, then states will be forced
to find other sources of funding to continue their activities. Unless other state or federal
funds are available, state regulators may be forced to drop out of the DSMOA program and
pursue cost recovery through other means, which may be more time consuming and costly.
V. Federal Agencies
Federal agencies have undertaken some training efforts to ensure that their field staff can
effectively communicate with public stakeholders, including local government officials.
102
-------
Chapter 6
Building on these activities, the Committee
recommends that federal agencies expand
and improve upon their current efforts to
ensure that field staff working in low-
income communities and communities of
color are effective at communicating and
partnering with these communities.
Community members should be considered
for participating in and conducting some of
the training activities. Such training should
include items such as the following:
• provide an awareness and respect for
the unique culture, history, and
knowledge of the community;
• educate agency staff regarding the
history of the environmental justice
movement;
• discuss the importance of utilizing
cross-cultural formats and providing
documents in languages and terms
appropriate to the community;
• create an awareness of how
community conditions of human
health, vitality, social and cultural
development, and the environment
are inextricably related to one
another;
• encourage cleanup plans that
coordinate cleanup with planning for
the reuse of facilities. For tribal
lands, communities of color, and
low-income communities, this is
critical to ensuring that restoration
activities are linked to reuse activities
that address existing and future
community needs;
ensure that personnel working in Alaska and Hawaii, and the island territories of the
Caribbean and Pacific understand the unique characteristics of these States, including
their native communities and their distinct geographic and climatological features;
Box 30: DOE Public Participation,
Stakeholder, and Environmental Justice
Training
One of the Office of Environmental Management's (EM)
most essential efforts is to institutionalize training in
public participation principles for managers, technical
staff, and the stakeholders with whom EM interacts.
Three forms of training are intended to create more
meaningful public participation opportunities for EM
external customers: 1) Public Participation Planning for
Managers (2-day course) and Public Participation
Planning for Senior Managers (one-half day briefing); 2)
Stakeholder Training; and 3) Environmental Justice
Training.
The Public Participation Planning courses are offered to
Department of Energy (DOE) program/project managers
and their technical and public participation support staff
from two to 10 times each year. These courses are
intended to train managers and staff to recognize their
responsibilities to stakeholders; to plan and manage
public involvement; and to become personally involved
in interacting with stakeholders. Over 600 people have
been trained in public participation skills acquired
through the above courses.
Stakeholder training consists of a one-day workshop
featuring presentations and class activities designed and
presented by DOE stakeholders. This course offers
DOE employees the opportunity to meet stakeholders
from the field and learn from their experiences. Nearly
170 people have completed stakeholder training.
Considerable progress has been made in the
development of a DOE-wide Environmental Justice
training course-it will be tested as a pilot program in
Spring of 1996. The training is intended to provide
instruction and implementation guidance for use by
numerous internal DOE stakeholders. The objective of
the training is to develop or increase awareness and
knowledge of the environmental justice mandate,
associated issues, and technical methodology and
procedures to meet environmental justice requirements.
DOE plans to offer training approximately six times each
year. For more information, contact Don Beck, Office of
Public Accountability, DOE, (202) 586-7633.
103
-------
FFERDC Final Report
• explain the importance of providing cleanup employment opportunities and
information regarding any risks associated with those opportunities to local and
impacted residents; and
• encourage decision-making processes that seek to harness and build upon local and
indigenous leadership and expertise.
In many cases, federal agencies already provide such training efforts. A DOE example of
some efforts are discussed in Box 30.
VI. General Capacity Building
To establish and maintain a level playing field in the area of federal facilities cleanup, it is
essential that all stakeholders have a common understanding, as complete as possible, of the
existing processes for cleanup decision making. In addition, the Committee notes that many
stakeholders, throughout the country, have read carefully through the Interim Report. It
believes, however, that its recommendations will be more widely and quickly disseminated if
a public stakeholders' guide is produced which communicates the basic concepts of the
Committee's recommendations within the greater context of explaining the federal facilities
cleanup processes.
The Committee recommends that EPA develop the public stakeholders' guide to federal
facilities cleanup. The guide, which might be a written document, a video, or some other
appropriate media, should convey the concepts in a manner that is understandable to the
average person, and it also provides resource suggestions for people who want to pursue an
issue in greater depth. The guide should include basic information regarding the regulatory
and legal processes for pursuing cleanup, important scientific terminology and concepts, and
appropriate mechanism for public stakeholders to receive information and contribute input
into the decision-making process. The guide should also summarize the work of this
Committee, introducing the recommendations contained in this report.
The Committee recommends that EPA solicit public stakeholder input during the
development of this guide and encourage its completion as rapidly as possible.
Conclusion
The Committee believes that the ability of all stakeholders to participate effectively in the
federal facility cleanup decision-making process is essential to efficient, viable cleanup
programs. Enhancing the capacity of stakeholders to participate will help establish working
partnerships among regulated and regulating agencies and other stakeholders that will result
in cost-effective cleanup decisions.
Building on the recommendations from the Committee's 1993 Interim Report, this report
recommends that federal agencies undertake more expansive and meaningful community
104
-------
Chapter 6
involvement in general, and make more effective use of advisory boards. It also
recommends agencies use a combination of approaches to priority setting and the allocation
of funding shortfalls. Finally, because federal facilities cleanup issues are so complex,
federal agencies, state tribal and local governments, communities and other stakeholders must
forge partnerships that will enable our nation to make the best decisions possible to address
environmental contamination at federal facilities. Through the collaborative processes
recommended in this report, the Committee hopes that the federal government and its
stakeholders will rise to the challenge posed by federal facilities cleanups by establishing a
model for responsible democratic decision making resulting in reasonable and credible
cleanup programs.
105
-------
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
FFERDC Members and Alternates
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Timothy Fields, Jr. (FFERDC Chair)
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Environmental
Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-4610
Fax 202-260-3527
Alternates to Timothy Fields, Jr. :
Jim Woolford
Director
Federal Facilities Restoration &
Reuse Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1606
Fax 202-260-3527
Lucy McCrillis
Associate Director
Federal Facilities Restoration &
Reuse Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-2457
Fax 202-260-5646
E-mail mccrillis. lucy@epamail. epa. gov
Barry Breen
Director
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2261A)
Washington, DC 20004
202-564-2593
Fax 202-501-0069
Alternates to Barry Breen:
Joyce Olin
Senior Counsel, Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2261 A)
Washington, DC 20004
202-564-2593
Fax 202-501-0069
Darlene Boerlage
Environmental Justice Coordinator
Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2261A)
Washington, DC 20004
202-564-2593
Fax 202-501-0069
Al
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Julie Anderson
Director
Federal Facilities Cleanup Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9 (MC H-9)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
415-744-2420
Fax 415-744-1916
E-mail anderson.julie@epamail. epa. gov
Jon D. Johnston
Branch Chief
Federal Facilities Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3016
Fax 404-347-5205 or 404-347-0076
E-mail j ohnston. j on@epamail. epa. gov
Alternate to Jon D. Johnston:
Camilla Bond Warren
Chief, DOE Remedial Section,
Federal Facilities Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3016
Fax 404-347-5205
Department of Defense
Sherri Goodman
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security)
Department of Defense
The Pentagon, Room 3E792
Washington, DC 20301
703-697-1013
Fax 703-693-7011
E-mail sgoodman@acq.osd.mil@smtp
Alternates to Sherri Goodman:
Patricia A. Rivers
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Environmental Security)
/Cleanup
3400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3400
703-697-5371
Fax 703-695-4981
Marcia Read
Office of the Assistant Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security)/Cleanup
3400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3400
703-697-9793
Fax 703-695-4981
Pat Ferrebee
Department of Defense
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security)
3400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3400
703-697-7475
Fax 703-695-4981
E-mail ferrebpl@acq.osd.mil
Department of the Air Force
Tom (Tad) McCall
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
for Environmental Quality
U.S. Air Force
1660 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1660
703-697-9297
Fax 703-614-2884
E-mail tmccall@saf2.hq.af.mil
A2
-------
Appendix A
Alternates to Tom (Tad) McCall:
Col. Craig Postlewate
Assistant for Public Health Policy
U.S. Air Force
SAF/MIQ
1660 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1660
703-697-1016
Fax 703-614-2884
E-mail postlewe@saf2.hq.af.mil
Lt. Col. John Selstrom
Chief, Air Force Environmental
Restoration Division AF/CEVR
U.S. Air Force
1260 Air Force Pentagon (5D376)
Washington, DC 20330-1260
703-697-3445
Fax 703-697-3592
E-mail selstroj@afce.hq.af.mil
Marilyn Null
Assistant for Regulatory Affairs
U.S. Air Force
SAF/MIQ
1660 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1660
703-697-0989
Fax 703-614-2884
E-mail nullm@saf2. hq. af. mil
Department of the Army
Richard E. Newsome
Assistant for Environmental
Restoration
Department of the Army
ATTN: SAILE-ESOH
The Pentagon (Room 3E613)
Washington, DC 20310-0110
703-614-9531
Fax 703-614-4057
Alternates to Richard E. Newsome:
Bob Schroeder
Department of the Army
DAIM-ED
ACSIM
600 Army Pentagon, Room IE, 682
Washington, DC 20310-0600
703-697-2828
Fax 703-697-0338
Maj. W. Steven Huff
Environmental Programs Manager
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-CO, Building E4460
APG, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2434
Fax 410-671-3132
Jack B. Wood
Associate Director of Environmental
Readiness
Department of the Army
DAIM-ED-R
Pentagon Room 1E682
Washington, DC 20310-0600
703-697-2828
Fax 703-697-0338
Department of the Navy
Elsie Munsell
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy
(Environment & Safety)
Department of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon (Room 4A686)
Washington, DC 20350-1000
703-614-1305
Fax 703-695-2573
E-mail munsell-elsie@hq. secnavy. navy. mil
A3
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Alternates to Elsie Munsell:
Paul Yaroschak
Director, Environmental Compliance
& Restoration Policy
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (I&E)
Department of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon (Room 4A686)
Washington, DC 20350-1000
703-614-1282
Fax 703-695-2573
E-mail yaroschak-paul@
hq. secnav. navy. mil
David Olson
Head of Installation Restoration
Chief of Naval Operations
Department of the Navy
200 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-2000
703-602-2571
Fax 703-602-2676
E-mail olsond@ny.opnav.navy.mil
U.S. Department of Energy
Cindy Kelly
Director, Office of Public Accountability
Office of Environmental Management
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-5)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-9335
Fax 202-586-1241
E-mail cynthia.kelly@em.doe.gov
Alternates to Cindy Kelly:
Donald M. Beck, Ph.D.
Deputy Office Director
Office of Public Accountability
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-4)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-7633
Fax 202-586-0293
E-mail donald.beck@em.doe.gov
Joan Glickman
Strategic Projects
U.S. Department of Energy (EM5)
1000 Independence Avenue
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-5607
Fax 202-586-0293
James Owendoff
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Restoration
U.S. Department of Energy (EM 40)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-6331
Fax 202-586-6523
Alternate to Jim Owendoff:
William Wisenbaker
Director
Office of Program Integration
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-43)
Cloverleaf Building
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
301-903-3124
Fax 301-903-3183
A4
-------
Appendix A
James D. Werner
Director
Office of Strategic Planning & Analysis
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-4)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-9280/7151
Fax 202-586-1241
Alternate to James D. Werner:
Suzanne Rudzinski
Director
Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-4)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-4373
Fax 202-586-9172
E-mail suzanne. rudzinski@em. doe. gov
Other Federal Agencies
Mark M. Bashor, Ph.D.
Associate Administrator for Federal
Programs
Agency for Toxic Substances
& Disease Registry
1600 Clifton Road (MS E-28)
Atlanta, GA 30333
404-639-0730
Fax 404-639-0759
E-mail mmb 1 @atsoaa 1. em. cdc. gov
Alternate to Mark M. Bashor:
Joe Hughart
Deputy Director, Office of Federal
Programs
Agency for Toxic Substances
& Disease Registry
1600 Clifton Road, NE (MS E-28)
Atlanta, GA 30333
404-639-0730
Fax 404-639-0586
E-mail jxh8@atsoaal.em.cdc.gov
John Craynon
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Environmental Policy &
Compliance
Department of Interior
1849 C Street, NW (MS 2340)
Washington, DC 20240
202-208-7555
Fax 202-208-6970
E-mail john-craynon@ios.doi.gov
Alternate to John Craynon:
Willie Taylor
Director
Office of Environmental Policy &
Compliance
Department of Interior
1849 C Street, NW (MS 2340)
Washington, DC 20240
202-208-3891
Fax 202-208-6970
E-mail willie-taylor@ios.doi.gov
I. Sam Higuchi, Jr.
Environmental Compliance & Safety Officer
U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA
1325 East West Highway
SSMC2/OA3X1/RM4434
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-0845
Fax 301-713-0219
E-mail shiguchi@banyan.doc.gov
Alternates to I. Sam Higuchi, Jr.:
Dan Strandy
Division Chief
Facilities & Logistics Division
U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA
Western Administration Support Center
7600 Sand Point Road, NE (WC-4)
Seattle, WA 98115-0070
206-526-6191
Fax 206-526-6675
E-mail dstrandy@wasc.noaa.gov
A5
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Nancy Briscoe
Attorney Advisor
U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA
Office of General Counsel for Natural
Resources Environment
1315 East-West Highway (Room 15132)
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282
301-713-1393
Fax 301-713-1229
E-mail ntbriscoe@rdc.noaa.gov
Robert J. Haehnle
Environmental Compliance Staff
U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA
1325 East West Highway
SSMC2/OA34/STE 4378
Silver Spring, MD 20910
301-713-0845
Fax 301-713-0219
E-mail RHAEHNLE@HQ.NOAA.GOV
Sharon Lundin (Retired)
Chief, FLD
U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA
7600 Sand Point Way, NE
Seattle, WA 98115
206-526-6191
Fax 206-526-6675
Harry Kringler
Environmental Engineer
U.S. Department of Agriculture
PO Box 96090 (zip 20090)
201 14th Street SE
Auditor's Building 3rd Floor
Washington, DC 20250
202-260-6565
Fax 202-205-0861
E-mail fswals=h.kringler/ou=w01a@mhs.attmail.com
Alternates to Harry Kringler:
Blake T. Velde
Environmental Scientist
U.S. Department of Agriculture
PO Box 96090 (zip 20090)
14th & Independence Ave, SW
Washington, DC 20250
202-205-0906
Fax 202-205-0861
George Sundstrom
Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Auditors Building, 3rd Floor SE
201 14th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20250
202-260-6556
Fax 202-205-0861
E-mail /S=G.SUNDSTROM/OU1_WO
1 A@mhs-fswa. attmail. com
STATE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
Jeff Breckel
Interstate Liaison
Washington Department of Ecology
Nuclear Waste Program
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, WA 98503
360-407-7148
Fax 360-407-7151
Alternates to Jeff Breckel:
Mike Wilson
Program Manager
Washington Department of Ecology
Nuclear Waste Program
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, WA 98503
360-407-7150
Fax 360-407-7151
A6
-------
Appendix A
Mr. Joe Stohr
Section Manager
Washington Department of Ecology
Nuclear Waste Program
PO Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, WA 98503
360-407-7107
Fax 360-407-7151
Lawrence W. Eastep
Manager
Remedial Project Management Section
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62704
217-782-9802
Fax 217-782-3258
E-mail epa9045@iepa.state.il.us
Sam Goodhope
Special Assistant Attorney General
Special Counsel for Environmental &
Transportation
Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas
PO Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711-2548
209 West 14th Street, 8th Floor
Austin, TX 78701
512-463-2025
Fax 512-463-2063
E-mail sgoodhop@oag.state.tx.us
Thomas Kennedy
Executive Director
Association of State & Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials
444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 315
Washington, DC 20001
202-624-5828
Fax 202-624-7875
E-mail swmtjk@sso.org
Alternate to Thomas Kennedy:
Kris Hoellen
Associate Deputy Director
Association of State & Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials
444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 315
Washington, DC 20001
202-624-5828
Fax 202-624-8198
E-mail swmkris@sso.org
Dan Miller
First Assistant Attorney General
Colorado Department of Law
1525 Sherman Street, 5th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
303-866-5014
Fax 303-866-3558
Ann Ragan
Federal Facilities Liaison
South Carolina Department of Health &
Environmental Quality Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
803-734-4721
Fax 803-734-5407
Howard Roitman
Division Director
Hazardous Materials & Waste
Management Division
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222
303-692-3397
Fax 303-759-5355
A7
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Alternate to Howard Roitman:
Jeff Edson
Unit Leader
Department of Defense Facilities
Hazardous Materials & Waste
Management Division
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80222
303-692-3388
Fax 303-759-5355
Brian J. Zwit
Director & Chief Counsel, Environment
Project
National Association of Attorneys General
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 339
Washington, DC 20002
202-434-8850
Fax 202-434-8008
E-mail brian. zwit@edn-naag. org
TRIBAL GOVERNMENT/NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES
Lance Nielsen
Remediation Bureau Chief
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
208-334-5860
Fax 208-334-0576
Alternate to Lance Nielsen:
Dean Nygard
Acting Bureau Chief
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton
Boise, ID 83706
208-373-0285
Fax 208-373-0276
Margaret (Maggie) Gover
Administrator
National Tribal Environmental
Council
2221 Rio Grande, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87104
505-242-2175
Fax 505-242-2654
Russell Jim
Manager, Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Program
Yakama Indian Nation
PO Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948
2808 Main Street
Union Gap, WA 98903
509-452-2502
Fax 509-452-2503
Alternates to Russell Jim:
F. Robert Cook
Technical Analyst
Yakama Indian Nation
PO Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948
1933 Jadwin Ave, #110
Richland, WA 99352
509-946-0101
Fax 509-943-8555
Thomas W. Woods
Supervisor, Richland Office
Yakama Indian Nation
PO Box 151
Toppenish, WA 98948
509-946-0101
Fax 509-943-8555
A8
-------
Appendix A
Alan Larson, Sr.
Board Member
Alaska Chapter
Indigenous Environmental Network
PO Box 5, Chickaloon Village
Sutton, AK 99674
907-745-0707 or 907-746-1741
Fax 907-745-7154
Alternate to Alan Larson, Sr. :
Cathy Hinds
Executive Director
Military Toxics Project
PO Box 246
Route 26, Norway Mall
Norway, ME 04268
207-743-2541
Fax 207-743-2648
E-mail mtp@igc.apc.org
Donna Powaukee
Manager
Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management
Nez Perce Tribe
PO Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540
208-843-7375
Fax 208-843-7378
Alternate to Donna Powaukee:
David Conrad
Policy Analyst
Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management
Nez Perce Tribe
Main and Beaver Grade, PO Box 365
Lapwai, ID 83540
208-843-7375
Fax 208-843-7378
Stanley Paytiamo
Environmental Protection Specialist
Pueblo of Acoma - Governor's Office
Office of Environmental Protection
1-40 Exit 102, South
PO Box 309
Acomita, NM 87034
505-552-9700
Fax 505-552-9700
Mervyn Tano
Director, Environmental Programs
Council of Energy Resource Tribes
1999 Broadway, Suite 2600
Denver, CO 80202
303-297-2378
Fax 303-296-5690 or 303-744-9808
E-mail mervtano@ix.netcom.com
Alternate to Mervyn Tano:
Tom Keefe
Council of Energy Resource Tribes
1999 Broadway, Suite 2600
Denver, CO 80202
303-297-2378
Fax 303-296-5690
A9
-------
FFERDC Final Report
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES
Amy Fitzgerald, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight
Committee, Inc.
136 South Illinois Avenue, Suite 208
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
423-483-1333
Fax 423-482-6572
Seth Kirshenberg
Director, Economic Development
International City/County Management
Association (ICMA)
777 North Capitol Street, NE, #500
Washington, DC 20002-4201
202-962-3663
Fax 202-962-3500
E-mail skirshenberg@icma.org
Alternate to Seth Kirshenberg:
Joel Spoonheim
Assistant Project Manager
International City/County Management
Association (ICMA)
777 North Capitol Street, NE, #500
Washington, DC 20002
202-962-3645
Fax 202-962-3500 •
E-mail jspoonheim@icma.org
Bill Lee
Chief Administrative Officer
City and County of San Francisco
401 Van Ness Avenue, Room 402
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-554-4852
Fax 415-554-4849
Alternate to Bill Lee:
Amy Brownell
Site Mitigation Engineer
San Francisco Department of Public
Health
101 Grove Street, Room 214
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-554-2778
Fax 415-554-2768
Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner
Executive Director
Energy Communities Alliance
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
703-818-2434
Fax 703-818-2437
E-mail gdipne@aol.com
Alternates to Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner:
Mary Holland
Senior Associate
Energy Communities Alliance
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
703-351-5270
Fax 703-351-5258
E-mail gracebear@aol.com
Steve Smith
Senior Associate
Energy Communities Alliance
1655 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 700
Arlington, VA 22209
703-351-5270
Fax 703-351-5258
E-Mail steves5245@aol.com
A10
-------
Appendix A
NON-GOVERNMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES
Pat Bryant
Executive Director
Gulf Coast Tenants Organization
1866 North Gayoso Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
504-949-4919
Fax 504-949-0422
E-mail gcto@igc.apc.org
Alternate to Pat Bryant:
Omodare Jupiter
Organizer/Trainer
Gulf Coast Tenants Organization
1866 North Gayoso Street
New Orleans, LA 70119
504-949-4919
Fax 504-949-0422
Sylvia Ledesma
Executive Director
People Organized in Defense of Earth
and Her Resources (PODER)
Southwest Network for Environmental &
Economic Justice
PO Box 7399
Albuquerque, NM 87194
117 7th Street, NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
505-242-0416
Fax 505-242-5609
Drew Caputo
Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
1350 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
202-783-7800
Fax 202-783-5917
E-mail nrdcnuclear@igc.apc.org
Tim Connor
Associate Director
Energy Research Foundation
South 1016 Buena Vista Drive
Spokane, WA 99204
509-838-4580
Fax 509-624-9188
Gawain Kripke
Director, Appropriations Project
Friends of the Earth
1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
202-783-7400 x 212
Fax 202-783-0444
E-mail gkripke@essential.org
Bonnie L. Exner-Rader
President
Citizens Intelligence Network
71 Algonquian Street
Aurora, CO 80018
303-364-2905(h) or 303-753-798l(w)
Fax 303-361-6713
Ralph Hutchison
Coordinator
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance
100 Tulsa Road Suite 4A
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
423-483-8202
Fax 423-426-9289
E-mail ralph. hutchison@environet. org
All
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Leslie Kuloloio
Protect Kahoolawe Fund
Protect Kahoolawe Ghana
469 Maalo Street
Kahului, Maui, HI 96732
808-871-4001
Fax 808-244-6775
Martha Matsuoka
Director, Economic Conversion Project
The Urban Habitat Program
Earth Island Institute
300 Broadway, Suite 28
San Francisco, CA 94133
415-788-3666
Fax 415-788-7324
E-mail uhp@igc.apc.org
Mildred McClain, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Citizens for Environmental Justice, Inc.
PO Box 1841
1115 Habersham Street
Savannah, GA 31401
912-233-0907
Fax 912-233-5105
Richard Miller
Policy Analyst
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers
International Union
2090 Northampton Street
Holyoke, MA 01040
413-536-3858
Fax 413-536-9616 or 202-393-2866
Alternate to Richard Miller:
Charles Barrett
Industrial Hygienist
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers
International Union
PO Box 281200
255 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, CO 80228
303-987-2229
Fax 303-987-5370
Donald Elisburg
Donald Elisburg Law Offices
11713 Rosalinda Drive
Potomac, MD 20854-3531
301-299-2950
Fax 301-299-8752
E-mail 7213 5.1524@compuserve. com
Alternate to Donald Elisburg:
Kelly Lapping
Associate Director, Environmental Safety
& Health
Laborer's Health & Safety Fund of North
America
1225 I Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
202-628-5465
Fax 202-628-2613
Arthur Pinckney
Chairman
Grassroots Conversion Coalition
873 Long Point Road
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
803-884-2646
Fax 803-884-5130
A12
-------
Appendix A
Lenny Siegel
Director
Pacific Studies Center
222B View Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
415-961-8918 or 415-969-1545
Fax 415-968-1126
E-mail lsiegel@igc.org
Alternate to Lenny Siegel:
Aimee Houghton
Communications Coordinator
CAREER/PRO
425 Market Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-904-7751
Fax 415-904-7765
E-Mail aimeeh@igc.apc.org
Ted Schettler, M.D., M.P.H.
Co-Chair, Committee on Human Health
and the Environment
Physicians for Social Responsibility
124 Peterborough Street, Apt. 12
Boston, MA 02215
617-536-7033
Fax 617-536-7033
E-mail tschettler@igc.apc.org
J. Ross Vincent
Chairman
Sierra Club EQ Strategy Team
PO Box 4375
Pueblo, CO 81003
719-561-3117
Fax 719-561-1149 (daytime only)
E-mail ross. vincent@sierraclub. org
Alternate to J. Ross Vincent:
Dr. Jay Sorenson
Chair, Federal Facilities Task Force
Sierra Club
2800 Charleston, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87110
505-884-4314
Fax 505-884-0114
E-mail j ay. sorenson@sierraclub. org
Designated Federal Official
Sven-Erik Kaiser
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse
Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5138
Fax 202-260-5646
E-mail KAISER.SVEN-ERIK@epamail.epa.gov
A13
-------
FFERDC Final Report
The Keystone Center Staff
Todd Barker
Associate
The Keystone Center
PO Box 8606
Keystone, CO 80435
970-468-5822
Fax 970-262-0152
E-mail tbarker@keystone.org
Timothy J. Mealey - Project Director
Associate Director
The Keystone Center
PO Box 8606
Keystone, CO 80435
970-468-5822
Fax 970-262-0152
E-mail tmealey@keystone.org
Kristi L. Parker
Senior Associate
The Keystone Center
PO Box 8606
Keystone, CO 80435
970-468-5822
Fax 970-262-0152
E-mail kparker@keystone.org
Sarah Stokes
Program Assistant
The Keystone Center
PO Box 8606
Keystone, CO 80435
970-468-5822
Fax 970-262-0152
E-mail sstokes@keystone.org
Sue Wilcox
Senior Project Support Coordinator
The Keystone Center
PO Box 8606
Keystone, CO 80435
970-468-5822
Fax 970-262-0152
E-mail sdeis@keystone.org
A14
-------
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
FFERDC Charter and Ground Rules
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARTER
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
DIALOGUE COMMITTEE
1. PURPOSE. This charter renews the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration
Dialogue Committee, which was originally established on April 29, 1992, in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. App. 2
§9(c).
2. AUTHORITY. It is determined that renewal of this Committee is in the public interest
and supports EPA in performing its duties and responsibilities under Section 120 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
Section 6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and other
authorities pertaining to the environmental restoration of Federal facilities.
3. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF ACTIVITY. The Committee will provide a forum to
refine and further develop issues related to environmental restoration activities at Federal
facilities. The forum will facilitate the exchange of ideas and information among
interested parties. It is hoped that consensus may be possible on these issues, but at a
minimum, EPA would like to ensure that issues are thoroughly refined and that differing
positions, as well as the reasons for those differences, are identified. At this tune, and
during the upcoming two years of our deliberations, the Committee does not plan to
produce a final report, but may decide to supplement, amend, or expand upon the Interim
Report.
4. FUNCTIONS. As indicated above, the Committee's function is to assist directly in the
development of EPA and Federal agency efforts to address Federal facility environmental
restoration programs. With the participation of knowledgeable and affected parties, EPA
expects to develop a practical approach to Federal agency environmental restoration
efforts that will best protect human health and the environment within guidelines and
principles that have broad public support and national applicability.
5. COMPOSITION. The Committee will consist of approximately fifty (50) members,
appointed by the EPA Deputy Administrator. Members will represent the following
interests in an appropriate mix and balance:
Bl
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Categories of Members:
• Public interest/environmental groups
• Tribal governments and Native American representatives
• State government representatives
• Local government representatives
• Federal agency representatives
• Environmental justice representatives
• Other interested and Affected Parties
Appropriate members shall be selected and appointed for the duration of the Committee's
charter. A full-time salaried official or regular employee of the Agency will serve as the
Designated Federal Officer and will be present at all meetings. The Designated Federal
Officer is authorized to adjourn any meeting whenever it is determined to be in the public
interest to do so. The Committee is authorized to form work groups for any purpose
consistent with this Charter. Such work groups shall report back to the full Committee.
Work groups have no authority to make decisions on behalf of the full Committee nor can
they report directly to the Agency.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA may pay travel and per diem expenses
when necessary and appropriate. The Committee's estimated annual operating cost is
approximately $200,000, which includes .5 work years of staff support. EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response will provide administrative and process support to
the Committee.
6. MEETINGS. Meetings shall be held as necessary, at the call of the Chair, with an
agenda for each meeting approved in advance by the Designated Federal Officer.
Committee meetings will be called, announced, and held in accordance with the EPA
Committee Management Manual. This manual contains the Agency's policies and
procedures for implementing FACA. Among other things, FACA requires open meetings
and an opportunity for interested persons to file comments before or after meetings, or to
make statements to the extent that time permits.
7. DURATION. The Committee charter is hereby renewed for two years from the date it is
filed with Congress. The charter may be renewed as authorized in accordance with
Section 14 of the FACA.
Agency Approval Date Robert M. Sussman
Deputy Administrator
Date Filed with Congress GSA Consultation Date
B2
-------
Appendix B
GROUND RULES
FEDERAL FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
DIALOGUE COMMITTEE
I. Objective of the FFER Dialogue Committee
As stated in its charter, the FFER Dialogue Committee will provide a forum to refine and
further develop issues related to environmental restoration activities at Federal facilities. The
forum will facilitate the exchange of ideas and information among interested parties. The
goal of the FFER Dialogue Committee is to develop consensus policy recommendations
aimed at improving the process by which federal facility environmental restoration decisions
are made such that federal facility cleanups better reflect the priorities and concerns of all
stakeholders.
It is hoped that consensus may be possible on how to address these issues, but at a minimum,
EPA would like to ensure that issues are thoroughly refined and that differing positions, as
well as the reasons for those differences, are identified. A final report describing the results
of the dialogue will be prepared. The output of the FFER Dialogue Committee will be made
available to various decision-makers who are concerned with federal facility environmental
restoration issues.
II. Membership in the FFER Dialogue Committee
Membership on the FFER Dialogue Committee will be limited to:
• three from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
• one each from the Department of Defense, Army, Navy and Air Force;
• three from the Department of Energy;
• one each from the Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry;
• ten state government and/or state government association representatives;
• six Native American/Tribal government representatives;
• four local government representatives; and
• fifteen environmental, citizen, environmental justice, and labor representatives.
Committee members may identify alternates who may participate in Committee meetings in
their absence or in work groups that are established by the full Committee. To the degree
possible Committee membership should not change once it has been announced. A
representative of the Office of Management and Budget will participate as an ex-officio
member of the Committee.
B3
-------
FFERDC Final Report
III. Decision-making
The Committee will operate by consensus with regard to any recommendations that are made
by the Committee on substantive policy issues. However, if consensus on specific
substantive proposals is not possible, the Committee will make every effort to articulate in
writing in its final report both the areas of agreement and disagreement and the reasons why
there continues to be differences. The term consensus means that a proposal can be
considered to have achieved consensus if there is no dissent by any member of the
Committee. Major procedural issues, including but not limited to whether to add new
members to the Committee and whether to issue a final report, will also be made by
consensus. For routine procedural matters, the Committee's facilitator will make every
effort to find a consensus solution.
IV. Meetings of the FFER Dialogue Committee
The FFER Dialogue Committee will operate as a federal advisory committee under the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Accordingly, all meetings of the FFER
Dialogue Committee will be open to the public, subject to the exemptions granted in the
Government in the Sunshine Act. Adequate notice of the time and location of future PDC
meetings will be published in the Federal Register and meeting summaries will be kept and
made available to the public. At the very least, at each Committee meeting, a half-hour at
the end of the meeting and, if possible, at the end of each meeting day, will be reserved to
provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the deliberations of the
Committee.
V. Use of Work Groups. Subcommittees and Caucuses
The FFER Dialogue will generally operate as a committee of the whole. When necessary
and appropriate, the Committee may create work groups and subcommittees to pursue certain
topics. Decisions on the creation of work groups and subcommittees will be made by
consensus. Every effort will be made to ensure that all work groups that are officially
formed by the Committee reflect roughly the same balance that has been achieved in the
Committee as a whole. When necessary and appropriate, Committee members may request a
break in the deliberations in the Committee to meet for a reasonable period of time in a
private caucus with other Committee members.
VI. Issuance of a Final Report
Subject to final consideration by the FFER Dialogue, it is envisioned that the Committee will
issue a report separate from the individual meeting summaries that will be prepared to
summarize the outcome of the Committee's deliberations at each full Committee meeting.
This report will include any consensus agreements that are reached by the group and their
B4
-------
Appendix B
associated recommendations, as well as any remaining areas of disagreement and the
substantive reasons for these disagreements. This report will be prepared by the facilitator
with assistance from Committee members and will be issued in draft form to the Committee,
with ample time for comments and revisions, prior to being issued as a final report. As
noted above, the decision of the Committee as to whether to issue a final report will be made
by consensus.
B5
-------
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
History of the FFEKDC Process
In February 1989, the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Procurement
and Military Nuclear Systems conducted a hearing on the process used by DOE to set
priorities for conducting environmental restoration activities at its nuclear weapons facilities.
The hearing, which included testimony by DOE, the General Accounting Office (GAO), and
the Natural Resources Defense Council, addressed many aspects of DOE's priority setting
methodologies.
In April 1989, the Governors of ten states sent the Secretary of Energy a letter calling for
decisive federal action on the establishment of a comprehensive national program for the
cleanup of all DOE defense and research facilities. The proposal put forth by the Governors
contained a discussion of several key elements for a national program. One element was the
need to develop a national priority system for ensuring that appropriate priorities for DOE
cleanups were established.
Shortly thereafter, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
sent to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a letter summarizing
the concerns of several federal departments regarding the need to establish national
environmental and funding priorities for the cleanup of federal facilities. In this letter, the
Administrator proposed that EPA convene a conference with representatives of other federal
and state agencies to begin discussing the issue. Subsequently, EPA proposed convening a
formal dialogue on the issues related to the establishment of federal facility cleanup
priorities. Further support for a national dialogue on priority-setting for federal facility
cleanups came in July 1989 when 49 Attorneys General sent an open letter to the U.S. House
of Representatives. This letter expressed support for a dialogue on federal facility cleanup
issues as a means of strengthening state-federal relationships.
Based on these public indications of support for a dialogue, EPA asked The Keystone Center
(TKC), a non-profit environmental conflict management group located in Keystone,
Colorado, in late 1990 to convene a national policy dialogue on federal facility environmental
restoration priority-setting. As is typically done in such circumstances, Keystone Center staff
conducted a series of interviews and discussions with key stakeholders to confirm support for
the idea of a national policy dialogue and to determine what specific policy issues should be
the focus of the proposed dialogue and who should participate.
These convening assessment activities led to the formation of a small ad hoc panning group
that consisted of representatives of several federal agencies, state agencies and state
governmental associations, national environmental groups, and others. This ad hoc planning
group, which met in January 1991, was designed to give The Keystone Center advice as to
whether and, if so, how to proceed with the proposed dialogue. At the time that The
Cl
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Keystone Center was asked to convene a dialogue to address federal facility priority-setting,
an important issue was congressional debate over the proposed Federal Facility Compliance
Act. This Act would authorize states to impose fines and penalties on federal agencies for
violations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Federal agencies were
concerned that they would now be subject to fines for failure to meet schedules in
enforcement agreements for cleanup where insufficient funds were appropriated. Federal
agency representatives believed that there was a need for a "system" that would establish
how to set priorities in the event insufficient funds are appropriated to meet all federal
cleanup obligations.
After addressing concerns about any links that might be created between the proposed
dialogue and pending federal facility environmental compliance legislation, the diverse
interests attending the January 1991 meeting agreed that a dialogue on federal facility
environmental restoration decision-making and priority-setting issues would be worthwhile.
They agreed that the proposed dialogue should not be linked to pending legislation or be used
by any dialogue participant as a reason to delay congressional debate on pending federal
facility legislation.
The assembled advisory/planning group agreed that the dialogue should, at the outset, have
as its objective the exchange of information and perspectives on federal facility
environmental management and priority-setting issues rather than the development of
consensus agreements on these issues. Furthermore, the group agreed that the initial focus
of the dialogue should be issues related to the need to set priorities for the cleanup of federal
facilities, with the possibility of addressing other critical federal facility environmental
management issues in the future.
The first meeting of the National Policy Dialogue on Federal Facility Environmental
Management occurred in June 1991. This meeting included representatives of tribal
governments and Native American organizations and local citizen groups, as well as the
interests that were represented at the January 1991 planning meeting. The June 1991
meeting included presentations from DOD, DOE and EPA officials on a variety of
environmental remediation related priority-setting mechanisms, models, systems, and
processes that are currently being used by these agencies. The group then had a general
discussion of federal facility priority-setting issues and identified some topics to address at its
next meeting.
In October 1991 the Dialogue Group met again to discuss the role of health assessments and
the consideration of risk in setting priorities for federal facility cleanup; how Native
American cultural issues should be factored into the priority-setting process; and the role that
various governmental and non-governmental entities should play in setting priorities for
federal facility cleanups. At its October 1991 meeting the Dialogue Group agreed that if
they were to continue meeting they should not simply exchange information and perspectives
C2
-------
Appendix C
but adopt an objective of developing consensus policy recommendations on how to improve
upon the federal facility environmental restoration decision-making process.
In February 1993, the Committee published an interim report entitled "Recommendations for
Improving the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Decision-making and
Priority-Setting Process." The Committee's recommendations focused on:
• improving the dissemination of cleanup related information;
• improving stakeholder involvement in key cleanup decisions, with special emphasis on the
use of advisory boards; and
• improving the consultation on cleanup funding decisions and setting priorities in the event
of funding shortfalls.
After its publication, the Committee held eight regional briefings to discuss the contents of
the report and solicit feedback. For the most part, the Interim Report was well received by
both those in the government and those affected by cleanup at federal facilities. Many
agencies have made major changes in response to the Committee's recommendations,
particularly those related to public involvement. For many government employees and
citizens living near facilities, the recommendations provided a new blueprint for how
government and citizens should interact in cleanup decision making.
Since 1993, EPA and The Keystone Center have distributed thousands of copies of the report
in response to requests from citizens living near facilities, agency personnel and a wide
variety of others.
A concern was consistently voiced during the regional briefings that the views of local
government and the environmental justice community had not been adequately included the
Interim Report's recommendations. In response to this concern, the FFERDC added new
members in the Fall of 1993, and then again in January 1995, bringing the Committee's total
membership to fifty persons. Through these steps, as well as replacing Committee members
who have changed jobs or moved on to other pursuits, the Committee believes it has obtained
an even greater degree of balance in terms of the diversity of interests represented, as well as
the geographic diversity of FFERDC participants.
During its deliberations in 1994, the Committee received presentations from individuals
representing local government and environmental justice experiences, interests and concerns.
During this period the Committee tracked implementation of its recommendations and
interacted with Clinton Administration officials who are members of the newly formed
Federal Facility Policy Group. In January 1995, the Committee decided to produce a Final
Report.
C3
-------
Appendix D
APPENDIX D
Agency Guidance Documents for Advisory Boards
Points of Contact
To receive the most up-to-date guidance documents on establishing and operating advisory
boards contact:
Department of Defense
Marcia Read
Office of the Assistant Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security)/Cleanup
3400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-3400
703-697-9793
Department of the Army
Greg Mahall
Public Affairs Specialist
U.S. Army Environmental Center
ATTN: SFIM-AEC-PA, Building E-4460
APG, MD 21010-5401
410-671-2556
Department of the Navy
David Olson
Head of Installation Restoration
Chief of Naval Operations
Department of the Navy
200 Navy Pentagon
Washington, DC 20350-2000
703-602-2571
Department of the Air Force
Alan Waite
Environmental Restoration Program
Manager
USAF/CEVR
Office of The Civil Engineer
Department of the Air Force
1260 Air Force Pentagon
Washington, DC 20330-1260
703-697-3445
Department of Energy
Don Beck
Deputy Office Director
Office of Public Accountability
U.S. Department of Energy (EM-4)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
202-586-7633
Environmental Protection Agency
Sven-Erik Kaiser
Environmental Protection Specialist
OSWER/FFRRO
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5101)
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-5138
Dl
-------
Appendix E
APPENDIX E
Membership Selection Processes
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
RAB Membership
The wing commander ensures the RAB member selection process is a cooperative effort with
the regulatory agencies and affected community. The process will be conducted in an open,
unbiased manner to ensure a diverse community and regulator representation. It is generally
recommended the RAB be no larger than 20 individuals and no smaller than is necessary to
adequately reflect the diverse interests of the community regarding the cleanup of the
installation. If RAB membership significantly exceeds 20, efforts should be made to
consolidate any duplicate representation of similar view points.
Selecting Air Force Installation Members
The wing commander appoints the installation co-chair. Additionally, other base functions
may include, but not be limited to, the base environmental coordinator, and the BRAC
Environmental Coordinator (at BRAC installations), or the public affairs officer, legal
counsel, and the bio-environmental engineer providing support to the RAB.
Selecting Regulatory Agency Members
The wing commander will contact and request the participation of EPA and state regulatory
agencies, and local government agencies. At installations with TRCs, representation by
current regulatory members is strongly encouraged.
Selecting Community Members
The wing commander in consultation with the state and EPA identifies diverse community
interests affected by the cleanup of the installation. Diverse community interests may
include, but not limited to, local residents, the business community, homeowners
associations, local environmental groups, environmental justice groups, local officials, and
civic groups. At BRAC installations, a local reuse committee representative will be
included.
A selection panel of community members representing the diverse interest groups is
organized by the wing commander to nominate interested people to serve on the base RAB.
The individuals should reflect a cross-section of the diverse interest groups.
El
-------
FFERDC Final Report
The selection panel identifies 1) the diverse community interest groups which should be
represented on the RAB, 2) selection criteria to achieve community diversity, and 3) a
solicitation process to induce nominations from and the diverse community interest groups.
The Air Force, in concert with the selection panel solicits nominations for the RAB through a
series of public notifications which may include, but not be limited to, an initial formation
meeting, community interviews, direct mailings, publication of fact sheets and community
interest forms, posters displays in prominent locations (libraries, meeting halls, etc),
advertisements in the local media (radio, television, and newspapers) and through telephone
surveys. Nominations are accepted for a specified period as identified in the public notices.
The selection panel reviews the nominations and submits a proposed list of RAB members to
the wing commander for approval. The selection panel should state their belief that the
proposed RAB reflects the diverse interests of the community as identified in the selection
criteria. The wing commander in consultation with the state and EPA either approves or
rejects the proposed list based on a determination the proposed list represent the diverse
interest of the community. A rejected list is returned to the selection committee for further
consideration and the development of a new list.
Upon selection of the RAB members, the installation will notify the individuals of their
selection and to the date of the first RAB meeting. Additionally, the installation will publish
in local newspapers paid announcements of the RAB members names and the date of the first
RAB meeting.
Reassessment of Community Interest
The wing commander establishes a program for assessing community interest where sudden
and/or evolving changes at the installation may affect the cleanup program. Installations
where initially no sustained, sufficient interest was observed, will establish a program to
regularly reassess community interest. Both programs will be identified in the installation's
community relations plan.
RAB Training
The wing commander ensures RAB members are provided the opportunity for additional
training in areas which influence the cleanup program. Training may include, but not be
limited to, the purpose and function of the RAB, the relative risk program, the DoD
mechanism for planning, programming, and budgeting system of cleanup requirements,
applicable federal and state laws and regulations, and mechanisms for assessing
human/ecological health risk.
E2
-------
Appendix E
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JOINT GUIDANCE
Ensuring Membership Diversity and Balance
RAB members should be identified by a selection panel, see "Selecting Community
Members." The RAB should be comprised of members from the local community and
representatives from DOD, the state, and EPA, as appropriate. Community members
selected for RAB membership should reflect the diverse interests within the local community.
RAB members should live/work in the affected community or be impacted by the restoration
program. The following list of potential interests should be considered for representation on
the RAB. This list is illustrative and not all inclusive. Each RAB should be developed to
reflect the unique mix of interests and concerns within the local community.
• local residents/community members (including minorities and low income)
• local reuse committees
• Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) recipient
• current TRC members
• local government officials/agencies
• business community
• school districts
• installation employees/residents
• local environmental groups/activists
• civic/public interest organizations
• religious community
• other regulatory agencies
• local homeowners organizations
• medical community
• Native American tribes
DOD, the state, and EPA, as appropriate, will generally have one member each on the RAB.
While it is anticipated that other members of the installation and regulatory agencies will
regularly attend and participate in RAB meetings as resources, the majority of RAB members
should be from the local community.
Soliciting Community Members
For an effective RAB to be established quickly, the DOD installation, in coordination with
the EPA, as appropriate, and the state, needs to inform and educate the local community
about the formulation of the RAB, its purpose, and the opportunities for membership. The
public outreach effort should be tailored to the individual community at each installation and
may include letters to local government officials and community members. This is especially
E3
-------
FFERDC Final Report
important at installations where there has been limited community involvement opportunities
or where there has been minimal community and media interest in the installation.
Every effort should be made to ensure that individuals or groups representing the
community's interest are informed about the RAB and given the opportunity for RAB
participation. Based on the results of member recruitment efforts, it may be necessary to
directly solicit some groups or organizations. A sample RAB member recruiting letter is
included as Enclosure 3 and may be useful in such efforts. For ease in tracking community
interest, a community interest form, Enclosure 4, can be developed and distributed at the
initial meeting, made available at local information repositories of other suitable locations,
and mailed to persons who write or call.
Determining the Size of RAB
The initial size of the RAB will be determined by the RAB selection panel. Once the RAB is
operational, procedures should be developed to address the addition and removal of RAB
members. The RAB may want to re-evaluate the current RAB size, diversity and balance
and add members. To facilitate constructive dialogue, the RAB should generally be no
larger than 20 individuals but no smaller than is necessary to adequately reflect the diversity
of community interests regarding installation restoration. If RAB membership significantly
exceeds 20, efforts should be made to consolidate and eliminate any duplicate representation
of similar view points. If the RAB is larger than 20, the use of subcommittees should be
considered.
Selecting RAB Members
The transition period between the meeting to initiate RAB formulation and the
implementation of a fully functioning RAB will likely be a busy, challenging period.
Although the length of time required to complete the transition to a RAB will vary from
installation to installation, most RABs should set a goal to be in full operation within six
months from the meeting to initiate RAB formulation. During this period of tune the
following key actives should be completed to ensure successful development and
implementation of the RAB.
Selecting Community Members
Selection Panel: The installation Commanding Officer (CO) in consultation with the
state and EPA, as appropriate, should identify community interests and
solicit names of individuals who can represent these interests on the
selection panel. Once the selection panel nominees have been
provided, the CO in consultation with the state and EPA, as
appropriate, should review the selection panel nominations to ensure
E4
-------
Appendix E
balance and diversity. If nominations represent the diversity of the
community, they will become the selection panel.
• procedures for nominating community RAB members
• process for reviewing community interest forms
• criteria for selecting community RAB members
• list of RAB nominees
Final Selection: RAB membership selection should be in an open and fair manner using
the panel. The panel will evaluate interest forms and develop a
nomination list for the CO. The CO, in consultation with the state and
EPA, as appropriate, should review the list to ensure that nominees
represent the diversity of the community. If the list lacks diversity, the
CO will ask the selection panel to provide a revised list. A lack of
diversity or balance is the only reason a list can be rejected.
The selection panel may want to contact those who expressed interest but not selected for
RAB membership to thank them for their interest and willingness to participate in the RAB.
A letter to them should explain selection criteria, why they were not chosen and should
encourage them to attend and participate at the RAB meetings as members of the general
public. Their interest forms should be kept on file for consideration when future
membership openings occur.
Additions to and removals from the RAB can be made at any time the RAB deems necessary.
Procedures for additions and resignations should be outlined in the operating procedures.
NOTE: DOD contractor personnel should not be RAB members. However, for
community RAB members who have business interests, membership on the RAB should not
limit ability to compete for contracts. All information provided the RAB members should
also be made available to the general public.
Selecting Government Members:
The DOD installation, state and local governments, and EPA, as appropriate, should be
represented on the RAB. Members may include the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) from
the service, state, and EPA, as appropriate, and representatives from local agencies.
Representatives should dedicate the time necessary and have sufficient authority to fulfill
RAB responsibilities. Whenever, possible, each entity should be represented by one
individual. Other government officials such as public health officials form the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) may attend RAB meetings as their expertise
may be needed.
E5
-------
FFERDC Final Report
In the case of closing military installations, the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Cleanup Team (BCT) will be a member of the RAB. The BCT consists of representatives
form the DOD service, EPA, and the state.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Selection of Members
The installation commander/Army co-chairperson should ensure that the selection process is a
cooperative effort with the regulators and affected community. Regardless of which process
an installation chooses to use, it should be conducted in a fair and open manner.
This section describes a recommended process for selecting Army installation, regulatory
agency and community members of the RAB. This guidance complies with the intent and
direction of DOD policy while providing flexibility for different circumstances that may exist
at individual installations.
It is recommended that RAB be no larger than 20 individuals but no smaller than is
necessary to adequately reflect the diverse community interests regarding installation cleanup.
and closure.
Selection of Army Installation Members
In addition to the Army co-chairperson, the installation commander may select an additional
installation representative to serve on the RAB. The additional installation representative
could be the BRAC Environmental Coordinator (EEC), environmental coordinator, public
affairs officer, base transition coordinator, legal counsel, etc. If not selected to be the
installation's representative, these individuals may still be required to attend the RAB
meetings and provide support.
Selection of Regulatory Agency Members
The installation commander of Army co-chairperson will contact the EPA and state
regulatory agencies to request that they appoint their respective members to the RAB. For
installations where TRCs already exist, representation by current regulatory members should
be strongly encouraged to preserve continuity.
E6
-------
Appendix E
Selection of Community Members
Selection of the community members can be performed in a five-step process:
Step One: The installation commander (in consultation with the EPA and state)
identifies the diverse community interests, which may included, but are
not limited to, local residents, the business community, homeowners
associations, local environmental groups, environmental justice groups
(low income and minority groups), local officials, civic groups, etc.
For BRAC installations, a representative(s) of the local reuse
committees should be included.
Step Two: The installation commander (in consultation with the EPA and state)
organizes a selection panel of community members from the diverse
interest groups identified in Step One, to nominate RAB members who
reflect a cross-section of the diverse interest groups. (See paragraph
III.D. for options on forming a selection panel.)
Step Three: The selection panel identifies the diverse community interest groups
that need to be represented by the RAB. The panel then develops a
solicitation process and establishes criteria for selection of RAB
members.
Recommended Solicitation Process: The following processed is designed to
solicit for members from the diverse interest groups identified by the selection
panel and to allow any other interested community members to be considered
for RAB membership:
• announce participation opportunities through news releases and paid
public notices (sample is at attachment 1);
• develop a community interest form to determine community concerns
and participation interest (sample is at attachment 2);
• establish a time period for receipt of the community interest forms;
• mail letters of invitation (sample at attachment 3), fact sheets (sample at
attachment 4) and community interest forms to those on the
installation's existing mailing list as well as to the groups identified by
the selection panel;
E7
-------
FFERDC Final Report
• place fact sheets and community interest forms in information
repositories;
• hold an initial meeting about RABs to discuss purpose, member
solicitation process, membership responsibilities; provide fact sheets
and community interest forms.
After the designated solicitation period ends, the selection panel convenes to
develop a list of suggested RAB members which reflect the diverse interests of
the community. The community interest forms submitted will be used in
developing this list. The selection panel submits the list of suggested RAB
members to the installation commander for approval.
Step Four: The installation commander (in consultation with EPA and state) will
review and accept the list unless he/she determines that it is not
representative of the diverse community interests. If the list is not an
accurate representation, the installation commander will specify the
weaknesses to be corrected. The selection panel will be instructed to
develop a new list for review/approval. Once the list is approved, the
selection panel will disband.
Step Five: The installation should do the following to announce the RAB
members:
• send letters to the selected RAB members to notify them of their
selection, the names of all the RAB members, and the date of the first
RAB meeting;
• send letters to those who submitted community interest forms,
announcing the names of the RAB members, thanking them for their
interest, encouraging them to attend future RAB meetings;
• send news releases to the local newspapers and place paid public
notices in the local newspapers announcing the names of the RAB
members and date of the first RAB meeting.
Options for Forming the Selection Panel
It is recommended that the selection panel be made up of community members and reflect the
diverse interests identified in Step One of paragraph III.C. Options which can be used for
forming the selection panel include the following:
E8
-------
Appendix E
• installation commander (in consultation with EPA and state)organizes a selection panel of
community members to nominate RAB members;
or
• installation commander (in consultation with EPA and state) has neutral facilitator
establish the selection panel;
or
• installation commander (in consultation with EPA and state) has community
representatives choose the members of the selection panel;
or
• installation commander (in consultation with EPA and state) places paid public notices in
the local newspapers asking for volunteers to serve on the selection panel;
or
• installation commander (in consultation with EPA and state) asks existing community
members of the TRC to act as the selection panel;
or
• installation commander, EPA and state representatives each nominate community members
to serve on the selection panel.
RAB Membership Additions and Resignations
Additions and resignations to the RAB can be made at any time the RAB deems necessary.
Procedures for additions and resignations should be outlined in the operating procedures. It
is recommended that once the RAB members have been selected, the Army co-chairperson
should keep the remaining community interest forms on file for future reference. If selected
RAB members resign in the future, the original community interest forms could be used as a
potential source for new members.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
Membership of RAB
(1) Shall include at least one representative of the installation on cognizant EFD, EPA,
and appropriate state and local authorities and members of the local community.
E9
-------
FFERDC Final Report
Whenever appropriate, natural resources trustees should be invited to have
representatives on the RAB. EPA and the state should be encouraged to provide the
RAB with representatives on who have the authority to make decisions concerning
implementation of specific proposals. At Base Realignment Closure (BRAC)
installations, the Navy's BRAC Transition Coordinator (ETC) and BRAC
Environmental Coordinator (BEC) will be members of the RAB. BRAC Cleanup
Team members from EPA and the State would be encouraged to participate
(2) Shall include a diverse group of individuals representing a broad cross section of the
community including established groups and interested individuals.
Selecting Community Members
(1) Determine the size of the RAB on a case by case basis and establish how many
community members (3-12) need to be added to the correct TRC to accomplish RAB
goals without limiting individuals or groups that would affect the diversity of the
RAB. It may be necessary to set a limit on how many community representatives will
be invited to join the RAB. All significant community groups and diverse interests
should be represented, but the number of members should be kept to a minimum.
(2) Announce responsibilities of RAB membership, selection procedure, and number of
community members to be selected. (See sample RAB Fact Sheet and RAB
Membership notice.)
(3) Identify potential new members by asking members of the current TRC and/or BRAC
Cleanup Team, at closing installations, to make recommendations. Potential members
should want the job, be willing to participate on a voluntary basis, and line in the
vicinity of the installation
(4) Obtain nominations:
a) Re-contact citizens interviewed during the development of the Community Relations
Plan (CRP) and ask for recommendations. If the CRP is not yet completed,
interviewees can be asked to recommend names of potential candidates during
community relations interviews.
b) Solicit nominations through announcements in newspapers and sent to parties on the
mailing list. If this method is used to recruit members, it is important to describe the
process which will be used in selection and to advertise the number of positions to be
filled. (See sample RAB Membership Application.)
E10
-------
Appendix E
(5) Create a slate of candidates and determine who should be asked to join the RAB.
Individuals who represent a cross section of the community should be chosen for RAB
membership by the current TRC. If there is no TRC, the installation and state and
federal agencies with cognizance over the cleanup should choose the community
members to the RAB.
(6) Announce new members upon their selection. Their names and phone numbers
should be made available to the community to assure access and communication.
Selecting Co-Chairs:
(1) Navy Co-Chair:
a) Appointed by the installation CO.
(2) Community Co-Chair:
a) Selected by the community members.
b) Use a process established by the community members of RAB.
c) Have the community members establish the terms and conditions for the Community
Co-Chair's service.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
As stated in the EM SSAB FACA charter, all board members must be officially appointed by
the Assistant Secretary for EM. Once a site has a complete list of nominations, this list and
information on the individuals should be provided to and will be considered by EM-5. An
example of the approved Idaho membership package is appended as Appendix A.
As stated in DOE Order 1130.6 "Advisory Council Committee Management," advisory board
members will usually be appointed for a period of two years. Membership terms should be
staggered so that at least one-third of the membership is retained for continuity.
Ell
------- |