Re: RAB Guidelines

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

I think the dropping of the mention of groups represents minor backsliding.
It's probably because bureaucrats want to believe that there is a silent
majority out there that doesn't follow the lead of organized activists. At
some bases they're probably right. Nevertheless, there are a couple of places
where the Guidance (which is joint DOD-EPA language) has hurt us.

As for providing advice as an individual, this is an attempt to avoid
the administrative requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Based on advise from a DOD lawyer, Pat Rivers - head of the DOD CLeanup
Program - did some fancy footwork during her RAB workshops this summer.
She suggested that RAB's could reach consensus, but we not designed to reach
consensus. Now she has a new lawyer who ways FACA may apply anyhow.

FACA has some good requirements, such as openness and balance in membership,
but its bureaucratic requirements - some by law, some by DOD polcy - are
not really appropriate for local advisory boards. For example, notices of
all meetings must be placed in the Federal Register. I am supporting efforts
to allow DOD to develop substitute administrative requirements as long as
the substantive requirements remain. My logic: I want to make it easy for
the military to set up SEVERAL HUNDRED RAB's!

Why is the language different? Because the guidance was developed by a Federal
committee, with reps from ODUS(ES), the armed services, and EPA, based on a
earlier - more practically oriented - guidance from Cal-EPA. They solicited
public comment, and they actually listed to some of it, but they had the final
word. FFERDC was the result of consensus negotiations that included people like
us.

Lenny Siegel