[CPEO-MEF] RAB Rule is a Milestone

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

The publication of the final rule on Defense Department Restoration 
Advisory Boards (RABs) in the May 12, 2006 Federal Register  marks a 
milestone in this decade-old endeavor. As a member of the Federal 
Facilities Environmental Restoration Advisory Committee, as well as 
subsequent activities, I was one of the architects of the RAB system, 
and I view it as an enormous success.

With 310 RABs in place as of September 30, 2004, this is an 
unprecedented experiment in public participation in technical 
decision-making. To be sure, there have been failures. There are Boards 
where community interest is limited. There are still RABs that do little 
more than rubber-stamp official ideas, as well as RABs whose advice is 
routinely ignored. But in most cases RABs have improved opportunities 
for the neighbors of present and former military bases to influence 
decisions about investigation and remediation.

The Defense Department and its environmental regulators are required to 
listen to communities, but they are not mandated to heed their advice. 
The Center for Public Environmental Oversight's efforts over the past 
ten years have been dedicated to strengthening communities' ability to 
affect decisions, both by helping RAB participants frame their 
suggestions in ways that decision-makers can react positively, and by 
helping them organize when officials reject sound community advice.

The final RAB Rule means business as usual. Though the Defense 
Department made a number of small changes in response to comments, in 
most cases it simply said that the RAB program was flexible enough to 
accommodate what the commenters suggested. In fact, I believe it's the 
flexibility of the RAB system that has made it work so well in so many 
diverse places.

However, in some instances, the Department rejected what I consider 
constructive comments. Most important, it failed to guarantee 
continuation of RABs when cleanup responsibility is transferred to other 
entities. In the rule's preamble (p. 27614), the Department explained, 
"Several commenters requested that RABs not be adjourned when the 
installation is transferred or cleanup privatized. The Department 
believes that it may be impractical for DoD to continue to operate RABs 
at former installations that have been transferred out of DoD control 
and restoration responsibilities assumed by the transferee. In such 
cases, after inviting input from the community and consulting with EPA 
(at NPL sites) and State officials, DoD will endeavor to arrange to have 
the transferee provide an appropriate means for the public to review and 
comment upon post-transfer restoration response decisions."

I had suggested, in my comments on the proposed rule, "that any such 
privatization mechanism contain contractual requirements for continuing 
public involvement." But the Department rejected a mandatory approach. 
RABs that wish to continue after transfer may have to take political 
action - even opposing early transfer proposals and other forms of 
privatization - to retain their influence. RABs generally help with 
cleanup and reuse, so property transfer shouldn't put them out of business.

Lenny
--
Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military