Federal facility cleanup "principles" to involve communities Tensions between communities and contaminated federal facilities may be eased by proposed guidelines defining federal cleanup obligations and community involvement. The 14 "principles" developed by a federal advisory committee include giving community representatives a seat at the decision-making table for cleanups at federal facilities. The principles were drafted by the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee, an EPA advisory committee of community, labor, and environmental organizations and federal, state, local, and tribal officials. The committee was established in 1992 to iron out differences that had led to litigation at a number of sites. A draft version of the principles issued by the advisory committee in 1993 has been frequently used by state and local governments to negotiate with federal facilities, said Sven-Erik Kaiser, committee member from EPA's Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office. A modified version of the principles was also incorporated into a Clinton administration position statement on federal facility cleanup issued in October by the White House Federal Facilities Policy Group. The advisory committee is expected to issue its final report in February. To committee member Lenny Seigel, director of the Pacific Studies Center, a San Franciscobased public information organization, the principles represent more than a policy advisory. They give communities greater influence in the final cleanup decisions at a federal facility by allowing them to officially participate. "It's not enough to call the mayor and then say, 'We've reached out to the community,' " Kaiser said. For instance, the principles call for creating site-specific advisory boards. The principles define the government's ethical and legal obligation to clean its polluted facilities,
set decisionmaking roles for all affected parties, and require consistency between government and private cleanups. The principles also address controversial environmental resDecisions about cleanup strategies at federal facilities such as toration issues the Hanford Reservation in Richland, WA (above), will consider future land use if proposed guidelines are adopted. Represensuch as risktatives of the Yakama Nation are pushing for an eventual return based priority to unrestricted use rather than indefinite storage of high-level setting and radioactive waste in tanks. future land use, which communities have viewed as ways eral facilities to avoid cleaning up polluters avoid cleanups. low-priority sites, Seigel said. The The principles would guide principles define priority setting Congress and federal officials in as "when you will do something setting federal facility cleanup rather than whether you will do policy. Facility managers see both it," he said, adding that when the principles draft and the White communities understand that, House group report as a federal they are more willing to work commitment to the principles, with the facility. according to John Craynon, an The committee did not agree Interior Department representaon provisions for future land use. tive on the advisory committee. Less than full consensus weakens Kaiser also expects the princithe principles, Kaiser admitted. ples language to show up in SuF. Robert Cook, representing the perfund reauthorization bills. Yakama Nation, a Native American tribe located near the DepartThe principles follow the ment of Energy's Hanford facility model of more progressive cleanin Washington State, said that the ups like that at California's Moffitt committee's refusal to set a date Naval Air Station, Seigel said. In for unrestricted use of contamithe early 1990s, the base comnated land, even 100 years after mander decided to address the facility closure, cheapens the cleanup there by "bringing the principles. Primary to Yakama most militant groups to the table." concerns are Hanford's high-level Until recently, Moffitt was the exradioactive wastes. The concern is ception rather than the rule, he that "putting an iron fence said. Frequently, disagreements around it and calling it a 'sacrifice led to litigation. Litigation over zone' " may be seen as a satisfacthe Rocky Mountain Arsenal in tory long-term solution, Cook Colorado and other court cases in said. Maine, Ohio, and Washington typify the strained communityOther principles address the facility relations, he said. government's sustained commitment to the completion of cleanBy adopting strong community ups, contracting of cleanup work, involvement provisions, the comenvironmental justice, negotiated mittee could address some of the cleanup agreements, implemenmore contentious principles such tation of pollution prevention and as risk-based priority setting, Kaicontrol, and health impact studser said. Communities are conies as part of the cleanup process. cerned that risk-based priority —DANIEL SHANNON setting is a way of allowing fedVOL. 29, NO. 12, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY • 5 4 5 A
