Communication

[Sheldon Novick <sheldon.novick@valley.net>]

Here are some belated comments on the role of Citizen Advisory Groups (CAGs) at Superfund sites.  I am a former EPA regional counsel, have served in state and local government, and am now representing a citizens' organization in the CAG for the Elizabeth Mine Site just down the road here in rural, central Vermont.  We have a good example of public involvement at our site, but it is despite rather because of the early creation of a CAG at EPA's behest.  Some of the problems with CAGs have already been mentioned. The general public is not really interested in participating in the detailed discussions, are generally interested in the action/no action decision, and the ultimate reuse of the site, have little interest in the detail negotations, and for most people there are language and cultural barriers to joining in the discussion.  EPA's arrival in our rural community is like the invasion of an army that speaks only some foreign language. . . .

There are also structural problems with the CAGs.  They are designed to be inclusive, and PRPs and local governments join as special interest groups. Two serious problems are created; local government feels it is being circumvented in its proper role, tends to insist on being dealt with more on an equal footing by EPA; and the presence of PRPs, especially early in the process, creates multiple problems.  Aside from the obvious conflicts of interest, the presence of PRPs bars EPA from providing technical or financial assistance to the CAGs.  Hence the technical assistance grants, TOSC and redevelopment programs must go to other organizations, which proliferate; the CAG itself becomes incapable of dealing with the complex process.  My own suggestion is to bar PRPs from the CAGs until they have settled their liability with EPA; perhaps an exception shoudl be made for de minimis PRPs.  EPA would have to deal with them separately, but it is does that anyway in settlement discussions.  Grant rules ought to be loosened to allow TOSC and redevelopment / brownfields grants directly to the CAGs, instead of funeeling through local governments.  With financial and technical assistance, the CAGs could hire staff, acquire consultants and expertise, and provide an interface between the government and the general public. Alternatively, local governments would play host to the CAG process, receive all grants and assistance.  As things stand, the CAGs just become another interest group, or the voice of a narrow segment of the community.