FFERDC MEMO: A BROADER VIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT

[Seth Kirshenberg <sethk@energyca.org>]

The following memorandum was sent to FFERDC members on April 10, 1998.
Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) is an organization which represents local
governments impacted by DOE facilities. For more information on ECA please
visit our web site at http://www.energyca.org

MEMORANDUM TO FFERDC MEMBERS, FROM SETH KIRSHENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENERGY COMMUNITIES ALLIANCE, DATE APRIL 10, 1998, SUBJECT BEYOND ADVISORY BOARDS: PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING

Federal agencies need to review their advisory board policies for the
involvement of local and Tribal governments. Many local and tribal
governments actively participate in advisory boards, others participate on
an ad hoc basis and others choose not to participate. Federal agencies
must remember, as it states in the FFERDC Final Report, advisory boards
should only be one mechanism of public involvement in environmental
cleanup.

In some communities the Federal agencies believe that Restoration Advisory
Board ("RABs") or Site Specific Advisory Boards ("SSABs") are "the" conduit
of environmental decision making input by the local community. For
example, the Department of Energy ("DOE") headquarters staff, holds a
regular conference call with its field managers. On the call, headquarters
staff asks the DOE field offices if they are communicating with the SSABs.
Each call the field manager answers affirmatively and headquarters and
field staff believe they have the input on environmental issues from the
"community."

The FFERDC committee clearly stated numerous times that a RAB, SSAB or
other similar group should not be the only form of public involvement for
environmental decision making. Each Federal agency should ensure it
communicates directly with others because the boards are only advisory in
nature. Some Federal agencies seem to have missed this section in
implementing advisory boards. This in turn, has caused a backlash against
RABs and SSABs at some sites by local governments and others because their
RABs or SSABs do not represent their local community, yet they have more
input then locally elected officials into environmental cleanup decisions
which impact the long-term health, safety, and welfare of the community.

In one recent case, a federal agency and EPA worked through some
environmental cleanup issues, and developed a solution with the input of

the RAB/SSAB and thought the issue was resolved. But when the local
government brought up the issue (at a later date), the issue in the mind of
EPA and the federal agency had been resolved, but the elected local
officials did not agree with the outcome. The federal agency people say it
is the fault of the local government for not actively participating in the
RAB/SSAB. However, the FFERDC recommendations for implementing advisory
boards clearly suggest that the Federal agencies should not only use the

RABs/SSABs for input on environmental issues, and that in the case of local
governments, the Federal agencies should consult directly with local
governments.

In another example, federal agencies use either an advisory board or reuse
organization (which does not always have sufficient local government
representation) to make future land use decisions at a site. The FFERDC 
principles state "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." Although, I do not
expect every FFERDC principle and idea to be followed explicitly, Federal
agencies should ensure that basic issues such as future land use decision
making are addressed by the officials elected to represent a local
community and have land use jurisdiction over the property.

I ask that each Federal agency review its policies and the FFERDC
principles to ensure the advisory boards are implemented as intended by the
FFERDC participants. Advisory Boards work well in many communities.
However, the Federal agencies need to look closely at each board and ensure
that they are not the only conduit for providing input into environmental
cleanup decision making at a site. Where a local or Tribal government
requests separate interaction on environmental issues, the Federal agency
should work with the governmental entities to develop a communications
mechanism to obtain input on environmental cleanup issues.

Seth Kirshenberg
sethk@energyca.org
1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036