The Citizen Participation Program involved all interested sectors of the local community. A 65-member advisory board was created including representatives of citizen groups, environmental organizations, city governments in the region, the state and federal government, labor unions, the chamber of commerce, local waste management companies, city-owned utilities, the firm that was testing the HTG technology, and interested private citizens. The tasks of the board were:

• to plan and observe the testing;
  
• to assess the possible risks of the technology to the population of Linz;
  
• to evaluate the efficiency and suitability of the new technology;
  
• and to determine further action to be taken by the City of Linz.

An expert committee was established to assist the advisory board. The experts were appointed in part by the firm that was testing the technology, by local citizen groups and environmental organizations, and by the local, state, and federal governments. The expert committee's role was:

• to conduct an independent study of the proposed incinerator facility and make recommendations for improvements;
  
• to make recommendations to the advisory board, in coordination with the firm, on the types and number of tests to be carried out;
  
• to scientifically evaluate both the testing process and the test results;
  
• to present the advisory board with progress reports on the testing at every advisory board meeting.
  
  The advisory board met ten times over a period of eighteen months. The meetings were held monthly except during the months when the firm was testing and the expert committee was evaluating the test results. In these cases the advisory board did not meet for periods of up to six months. Both the advisory board and the expert committee meetings were open to the public. Newcomers and visitors were allowed to join the group's discussions at any time. The press was also welcomed to attend the meetings. All decisions were made on the basis of consensus.
  
  All technical information was made available to the expert committee, including the results of tests carried out by the firm. Although the advisory board was not directly presented with this information, the detailed evaluations written by the expert committee gave the advisory board and the general public access to test results in a form that could be understood by non-experts. Because of the heavy reliance upon the individuals serving on the expert committee to provide the facts about the technology, the choice of these individuals and the community's confidence in them played an important role in the success of the Program.
  
  Six of the advisory board members were given unrestricted access to the plant, and all members of the advisory board were allowed to be present at the plant during the operation of tests if they gave prior notice to the company. The experts were also allowed comprehensive visiting rights at the plant. In addition, they had access to the firm's internal data. For this reason the experts signed statements of secrecy to protect the firm from, among other things, a potential loss in market competitiveness.
  
  << Back | Next >>