Charles M. Rice
INEEL CAB Chair

W.R. Russell
DOE-ID, INEEL CAB Coordinator

Wendy Green Lowe
Jason Associates, INEEL CAB Facilitator

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Citizens Advisory Board is widely regarded for providing timely, thoughtful, and reasoned input to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho Operations Office regarding operation of the laboratory. In the words of DOE-ID’s Site Manager John Wilcynksi, the Board "challenges agency assumptions, critically examines proposed solutions, questions integration efforts, and continuously reminds the agency of its responsibilities to the environment and to the public." The authors examine the keys to the Board’s success, including a carefully designed board structure, focus on contemporary issues, membership commitment to consensus and committee-work, neutral process facilitation, and strong support from DOE management.

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) is a nonpartisan, broadly representative organization with concerns related to all INEEL activities. Dedicated to providing informed recommendations to the Department of Energy’s Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) and its regulators—the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Idaho. Achievements to date include 37 broad, policy level, recommendations, many of which have multiple specific recommendations, sponsorship of public forums on transportation and the Idaho Settlement Agreement, and interaction with other CABs. According to John Wilcynksi, DOE-ID’s Site Manager, the Board "challenges agency assumptions, critically examines proposed solutions, questions integration efforts, and continuously reminds the agency of its responsibilities to the environment and to the public."

In addition to providing recommendations on site-specific issues in 1997, the Board turned its attention to the DOE’s Focus on 2006 efforts and expanded its agenda to consider national problems affecting numerous DOE sites. The INEEL CAB led the way in collaborating with other DOE sites and other CABs to focus on an integrated, complex-wide approach to environmental cleanup. In this endeavor, the INEEL CAB strives to contribute to the Department’s ongoing effort to complete the cleanup while balancing risk and compliance requirements with stakeholder and equity concerns.

Keys to the Board’s success include a carefully designed board structure, focus on contemporary issues, membership commitment to consensus and committee-work, neutral process facilitation, and strong support from DOE management. Efforts continue to improve performance as specified during a recent self-evaluation, including improving communication between the INEEL CAB and the public, enhancing the relevance and impact of recommendations, and working to clarify public perceptions of issues considered by the Board.

This paper shares the observations of the Board’s chair, DOE coordinator, and facilitator on what makes the INEEL CAB successful.

Early in 1993, DOE decided to convene advisory boards at many DOE sites. In October of that year, a Design Committee of 25 volunteers from around the State of Idaho began discussions on how to structure and convene a credible, independent advisory body for what was then called the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. This committee included interested individuals and representatives from a wide range of organizations. The committee’s meetings were open to the public and unaffiliated individuals provided input to the committee during its deliberations.

The Design Committee first discussed the structure and mission for the INEEL CAB. It determined that there were nine key perspectives that it felt were needed on the CAB to ensure diversity and balance. As a result, the Committee mandated that the Board include representation on the Board from each of the nine perspectives:

• the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
• affected "local" government
• business interests
• educational community
• general public
• site-related union/workforce
• environmental interests
• natural resource "users"
• health professionals

At the conclusion of the process conducted by the Design Committee, six of the Committee members, along with a representative of the State of Idaho’s INEEL Oversight Office, formed a Selection Panel. The Selection Panel was tasked with developing and distributing applications for CAB membership to the public; collecting, reviewing, and ranking completed applications; developing a set of membership criteria to use in selecting the 15 member CAB; and ensuring that the nomination and selection process was fair and implemented in an open and publicly-acceptable manner.

The Selection Committee received applications from more than 300 Idaho citizens. They selected a slate of 15 individuals. DOE approved the slate and the INEEL CAB held its first meeting in May of 1994. Three ex-officio members—one each from DOE’s Idaho Operations Office, the State of Idaho, and the EPA—were selected to provide information to the Board; they are not allowed to participate in deliberations about recommendations or to vote on any administrative matters.

The Board is chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which provides administrative guidelines for advisory boards formed by Federal Agencies and grants the authority to make recommendations to DOE. The Board continues to get together six times a year throughout the State for two-day meetings. When a vacancy on the Board occurs, it is filled by an individual who represents at least one of the targeted categories of perspectives that resulted from the vacancy.

Since its inception in 1994, the INEEL CAB has transmitted 37 recommendations to DOE-ID's Site Manager. Four of those recommendations have also been addressed to the EPA and three to the State of Idaho as they pertained to issues under those agencies’ regulatory authority. The recommendations address a variety of topics. Every year, DOE-ID, the State of Idaho, and Region X of the EPA, provide lists of suggested topics for Board consideration. While it considers the suggested topics, the INEEL CAB develops its own agenda based on a prioritization of potential topics that also includes consideration of topics of concern to the Board members. As a result, the INEEL CAB is completely autonomous in selecting issues for consideration and providing recommendations on those issues it deems most important to the public.

The Board interprets its purpose as serving to inform DOE regarding the range of citizen concerns on issues facing the Department. As a general rule, the Board chooses not to review and comment on technical details. Rather, it strives to provide input on policy issues. In addition, the Board’s advice is based on a belief that simply saying what DOE wants to hear would not be providing any service at all.

It should be noted that most of the Board’s recommendations address numerous issues of concern to the Board. Often several related issues are packaged together is a recommendation. Of the 37 recommendations the INEEL CAB has completed to date:

• 8 submitted as comments on various activities completed in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compliance, and Liability Act.
• 5 submitted as comments in support of DOE’s efforts to prepare National Environmental Policy Act documents.
• 5 addressed specific waste streams/programs at the INEEL.
• 5 provided advice to DOE regarding its public outreach/communication program.
• 4 addressed DOE’s overall plans for integration and cleanup.
• 3 addressed the DOE budget and fiscal prioritization process.
• 3 addressed management of the spent nuclear fuel program.
• 2 addressed long term land use at the INEEL.
• 1 addressed the INEEL’s strategic mission.
• 1 addressed a workforce restructuring plan.

The Board's recommendations have been both supportive and critical of DOE's philosophies and operations. Themes in the Board's more supportive recommendations have included:

• Support for DOE’s identification of mechanisms to improve performance regarding cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and work quality.
• Encouragement for enhanced public participation efforts.
• Requests to involve stakeholders early on in decision-making processes.
• Support for funding to complete the scientific research that serves as the foundation for environmental cleanup.
• Support for DOE’s efforts to comply with environmental regulations and the Idaho Settlement Agreement.

Themes in recommendations that have disagreed with or criticized DOE policy have included:

• Criticisms of DOE’s failure to consider cost-effective methodologies when evaluating remedial alternatives.
• Expressions of frustration when DOE has failed to keep the Board adequately informed on Pit 9.
• Chastisements for DOE’s apparent unwillingness to resolve permanent waste disposal problems, such as WIPP and Yucca Mountain.
• Expressions of frustration at the lack of coordination among DOE's planning endeavors.
• Concerns regarding DOE’s failure to develop integrated cleanup strategies across the complex.
• Concerns regarding inadequate funding to meet cleanup commitments at the INEEL.

The Board also consistently advocates several positions regarding INEEL operations. It regularly supports protection of the Snake River Plain Aquifer and full compliance with the Idaho Settlement Agreement. In addition, the INEEL CAB has recognized that INEEL is a national resource that can contribute to solving national problems.

The transmittal letters that accompany recommendations state that the Board expects a rapid response and a full explanation of what DOE will do with the input provided. When DOE decides not to heed the Board’s advice, the Board expects full disclosure regarding the agency’s rationale. Feedback from DOE mangers indicates that the Board’s recommendations are valued even when they are not implemented. In addition, DOE program managers appreciate the opportunity to interact with Board members and the value provided by the Board’s balanced and reasoned understanding of issues from diverse perspectives.

The process by which the INEEL CAB develops a recommendation involves: 1) careful study by the assigned issue committee, 2) development of a draft recommendation within committee for consideration by the full Board, 3) presentations to the Board as a whole to allow all members to develop a full understanding of the issues and the various perspectives on those issues, 4) collaborative discussion around points of agreement in an effort to address points of disagreement, and 5) a facilitated process to develop consensus.

All Board members serve on several of the approximately 12 issue committees, where the leg work takes place. Committees are assigned one or more objective's by the Board at the end of each Board meeting for achievement before the next meeting. As a result, Board members typically participate in 8 or 10 committee meetings every two months. The diversity of the entire Board is reflected in most of the issue committees.

Committee work involves discussions with relevant DOE, State of Idaho, EPA, consultants (if required) and contractor staff and review of related documents. Once the committee determines that it has enough information to proceed, a facilitated discussion allows members to express their concerns. The committee strives for consensus on key points. Then a recommendation articulating the key areas of agreement is drafted by the Committee chair and the draft is revised based on a review by the rest of the committee. The revised draft recommendation is distributed to the rest of the Board for consideration. Oftentimes many months are spent tracking a topic in Board and committee meetings before the issue committee is comfortable bringing a draft recommendation before the full Board for consideration.

Board meetings reconstruct the learning process for the entire Board. Presentations from agency and contractor staff address the information the committee feels is most relevant and compelling on a particular issue. Pre-meeting assignments are sent to Board members in advance of each meeting to allow for adequate time to review documents and consider the draft language for each recommendation on the agenda. Following relevant presentations, the agenda includes time for facilitated discussion and then a facilitated process to achieve consensus on the final recommendation. The Board has reassigned several recommendations back to committee for further research and refinement when the Board feels that all the concerns have not been resolved.

The INEEL CAB has a full-time facilitator and 3 nearly full-time support staff. The facilitator is a trained neutral process facilitator who is also knowledgeable of DOE programs and EPA policies and procedures and stays current on issues of interest to the public and to special interest groups throughout the State. All Board meetings and committee meetings are facilitated. Minutes of all meetings, including committee meetings, are distributed to all Board members to help them stay current on the issues to be addressed at future meetings. The goals of facilitation are many:

• To help the Board prioritize potential topics for consideration.
• To plan the Board’s time so that topics are addressed in a timely manner.
• To ensure that agendas for all meetings are designed to meet the Board’s objectives
• To help the Board stay on task and on schedule.
• To ensure the Board considers as many perspectives as possible.
• To help identify points of agreement and manage discussion around points of disagreement in a constructive manner.
• To help resolve conflicts in a manner that treats all perspectives respectfully.

The support staff provides additional support. They hunt down documents requested by Board members, manage the logistics involved with all meetings, distribute materials, maintain an Internet home page, and address questions from members of the general public. In short, they ensure that the Board members, whose time is the most valuable Board resource, don’t have to attend to trivia.

Achieving consensus requires, in most cases, active participation. If the Board seeks to make a decision where there is no disagreement, consensus simply requires finding a conclusion that is agreeable to all participants. Most of the time, however, one or more Board members would prefer an alternate conclusion. In order for the process of achieving consensus to be most effective, it must allow for active collaboration or consensus-building: a rather slow (and messy) process whereby individuals seek to find common ground and build a conclusion that satisfies the interests of all parties. The Board’s facilitator serves that process by designing agendas to allow deliberate progress, enforcing ground rules to ensure an even playing field, and managing the process so that the Board members can focus on the issues at hand.

Despite its efforts to represent a broad range of perspectives held by the public, the INEEL CAB has been criticized for failing to include the participation of the more vocal and visible special interest groups in Idaho. The criticism stings as most Board members make deliberate efforts to understand the interests of all members of the public. As can be seen from the original mandate of the Design Committee, the INEEL CAB was never structured to include specific advocacy groups but rather to include individuals representing various perspectives to ensure diversity and balance. In the course of its deliberations, the Board has made a concerted effort to open its process to dissenting views from organizations opposed to DOE's actions and proposals.

Originally chartered under the DOE's nationwide Environmental Management Advisory Board, the INEEL CAB was commissioned to address the environmental restoration and waste management programs at INEEL. In recognition of the value placed on the Board's advice, DOE-ID Site Manager John Wilcynski expanded the scope of issues he requested the Board to consider to include any and all issues related to the INEEL. In that move, INEEL authorized its CAB to exercise more influence than most DOE sites allow. As a result, the CAB has submitted recommendations on a wide range of issues, including budget documents, strategic and land use planning efforts, economic development, risk management, and even use of the technical library by the general public.

On several occasions, beginning with one of the first Board meetings, John Wilcynski has made the Board feel valued. The Board’s advice is actively solicited for the full scope of activities at the INEEL. The Board is treated with respect, even deference, by DOE-ID, its prime contractor (Lockheed Martin), EPA, and the State of Idaho. The only time the Board has ncountered resistance involved politically sensitive issues (mixed-oxide fuel fabrication) or a contractual matters (Pit 9). In some instances, merely putting topics on the Board’s agenda has resulted in a shift in the DOE stance.

In the last year, the Board's recommendations have illustrated that the INEEL CAB continues to establish its independence and objectivity. It has addressed issues not suggested by DOE and produced recommendations that are objective and candid in their intent, yet critical of DOE in their impact. Increasingly, the Board requests presentations from non-DOE perspectives about issues and concerns that may have been overlooked otherwise. CAB members often discuss the issues under consideration within their own communities. In short, the INEEL CAB serves an increasingly valuable role in opening DOE's decision-making up to public scrutiny.

It is difficult to be confrontational with DOE when the agency welcomes the Board's advice with open arms, provides the monetary and technical support to do good work, makes it clear at all levels that the Board performs a valuable function for the agency and its mission, and most importantly, treats recommendations and advice with respect and careful consideration. The Board works hard to stay independent in its outlook and to provide reasoned recommendations that result from a deliberate process to address diverse concerns.

BACK