• 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”.

 

The 1996 report also considers on page 57 (PDF - 74) the possible involvement of affected private sector entities:

 

“...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”.

 

On page 66 (PDF - 83) the 1996 report provides recommendations about interagency agreements:

 

“...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 cosponsored 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”.

 

 

 

• 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”.

 

On pages 56 to 57 (PDF -73 to74) the 1996 report provides guidance regarding the diversity of an advisory board’s membership:

 

“...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:

 

• individual residents that live in or own property around the communities or regions in which a facility is located;

 

 

 

 

 

 

  FFERDC Guidance (pre 2000)  (CONT’D FROM P. 21)

CONTINUED ON P. 23