RAB ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

RAB LEGISLATION
In December, Congress finally passed the Fiscal Year 1996 Defense 
Authorization Act, but as expected, the President vetoed it for 
reasons, such as strategic missile defense, that had nothing to do with 
cleanup. Even if the Act does not become law, the Defense Department 
(DOD) is expected to comply with the final language on restoration 
advisory boards. That language represents an improvement over the 
original 1996 Senate language, but it is still likely to limit the 
flexibility of the program.
The final version of the law provides for a total of $6 million, from 
both the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) and the Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) cleanup account, to support the 
activities of Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs). This includes 
administrative support as well as technical assistance for both RABs 
and Technical Review Committees (TRCs). Since DOD has estimated that 
administrative costs, for the more than 200 RABs, could be already as 
much a $4 million a year, that would leave $2 million available for 
technical assistance.
DOD is continuing to work on regulations, due by September 15, 1996, 
governing RABs and the provision of technical assistance. The new 
language imposes a needs test on the RAB requesting such assistance, 
and it directs that any such support be channeled through the base 
commander, or if the facility has no commander - if it has been closed, 
for example - an appropriate Defense official.
In effect, this means that technical assistance is still alive, but it 
also means that the military will be forced to use or adapt the third 
option described in its May 24, 1995 Federal Register notice. That is, 
it would provide purchase orders (vouchers) of up to $25,000 each (at 
one time) to hire assistance providers selected by the community 
members of a TRC or RAB at each Department of Defense facility using 
guidelines provided by the Department of Defense. Ironically, this 
particular option is the one favored by a large number of RAB members.
Still, the purchase order option could make more difficult the 
provision of on-call services, particularly for RABs unprepared to hire 
and direct a consultant. It might make it difficult to support regional 
or national workshops or networking activities. And potential service 
providers might be unwilling to spend their own resources to bid on 
such small jobs.
Though it is still likely to be several months before DOD makes any 
technical assistance money available to RABs, I suggest that RABs that 
do not currently have EPA Technical Assistance Grants begin to frame 
"statements of work" explaining why they need and how they would use 
their own technical consultants. This should be more specific than 
"read through this month's stack of documents, attend meetings, and 
summarize." Rather, it should delineate the specific questions or 
decisions for which technical help is needed.
You may also wish to look at the administrative support budget for your 
RAB. Can money be saved on staffing, meeting space, transcriptions, 
copying, and publications that could be better spent on technical 
assistance? Will the RAB sponsor (the armed service), within legal 
limitations, allow the RAB to shape its own budget?
Lenny Siegel