Review of Secondary Waste Disposal Planning for the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plants (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 Public Participation A review and analysis of public participation in the cur- However, the key institution for facilitating com- rent phase of the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives munications with the public is the Blue Grass Chemical (ACWA) program is presented in this chapter, which also Stockpile Outreach Office, funded by DOD and operated by contains information gathered during visits to the communi- a contractor (not, however, the systems contractor, Bechtel ties adjacent to the BGCAPP and PCAPP sites to ascertain National, Inc.). The Outreach Office publishes fact sheets stakeholder perspectives on secondary waste issues. and newsletters, maintains a mailing list of 2,800, partici- pates in local events such as the annual Safety Fair, operates a speakers bureau, and facilitates public meetings. Most BGCAPP Stakeholder INTERACTIONS AND Issues important, it supports the Kentucky Chemical Demilitar- ization Citizens’ Advisory Commission (CAC) and a CAC Mechanisms for Public Outreach and Involvement subsidiary, the Chemical Destruction Community Advisory The communities around the Blue Grass Army Depot Board (CDCAB). (BGAD) have a long history of concern about the storage The CAC, established by Kentucky statute in 1994, is and demilitarization of chemical warfare materiel stockpile made up of nine members appointed by the governor of Ken- at the site. In fact, local opposition to proposed incineration, tucky. Seven are local citizens and two are representatives of expressed through Kentucky’s congressional delegation, state agencies that work closely with the chemical weapons played a key role in the creation of the Assembled Chemi- disposal program. The CDCAB, formed in 2003 under the cal Weapons Assessment program (as it was then named) auspices of the CAC, provides for broader public representa- in 1996. tion and has 21 voting members as well as 6 representatives Today, BGCAPP, in conjunction with the Blue Grass of the agencies being advised by the body (see Box 5-1). In Chemical Activity (BGCA) and management for the BGAD general, the CDCAB takes positions by consensus. Its meet- itself,  has a generally effective system for informing ings are independently facilitated by the Keystone Center, the public and eliciting comment from diverse represen- an organization that assists groups in acquiring information tatives of adjacent communities, primarily Berea and needed to make collective decisions. Richmond. Each of the three entities operates a public Not everyone in the community supports or even follows affairs office, and the BGCAPP systems contractor has the positions taken by the organized public participation its own public relations staff. These officials serve as groups. Local activists report that there is substantial com- spokespersons for the Army activities. It is their job to munity sentiment that simply supports prompt elimination explain proposed activities as well as unplanned events— of the chemical stockpile, without backing—or opposing— such as leaking chemical agent containers—to the public. CDCAB positions on how to go about it. In Summary of CDCAB Secondary Waste Working Group June 2003, the name of the program was changed to the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program. Positions and Resolutions BGCAPP is a Department of Defense (DOD) ACWA program facility. The CDCAB Secondary Waste Working Group, made The BGCA is an Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) management entity for the chemical stockpile storage area and the site for BGCAPP up of fewer than 10 CDCAB voting members, meets with within the BGAD. The BGAD encompasses additional Army activities and regulatory agency representatives regularly and studies is under the jurisdiction of the Army Material Command. waste disposition issues in detail. It makes recommendations 40 

public participation 41 than agent hydrolysate), as long as it can be shown that the Box 5-1 level of agent contamination is below the release criteria that Members of Kentucky Chemical Destruction it accepts, which generally comport with the waste clearance Community Advisory Board, December 2007 levels accepted by the regulatory authorities. However, it has not yet taken positions on the disposition of activated Voting members carbon filters or the less significant waste stream comprising chemicals with expired shelf life. Berea Chamber of Commerce Berea civic representative Berea College Other Community Positions Berea community schools In addition to the official bodies, the national activ- Chemical Weapons Working Group ist coalition—the Chemical Weapons Working Group Citizens’ Advisory Commission (CWWG)—is based in nearby Berea. Although CWWG Citizens’ Advisory Commission has member organizations at all sites that have stockpiles City of Berea councilman of chemical weapons, its leadership is directly involved at City of Richmond the Blue Grass site. CWWG’s executive director is cochair Commonwealth of Kentucky state senator of the CDCAB. Eastern Kentucky University Formed in 1991, CWWG’s original focus was opposi- Madison County Emergency Management Agency tion to the incineration of chemical warfare materiel, but in a Madison County Fiscal Court document entitled “International Citizens’ Accord on Chemi- Madison County Ministerial Association cal Weapons Disposal,” it opposed the transport of stockpile Madison County schools munitions: “If, as a last resort, transportation of chemical National Association for the Advancement of Colored People weapons must be undertaken, it should be only for final Pattie A. Clay Regional Medical Center treatment and/or disposal, after necessary stabilization, with Richmond Chamber of Commerce the consent of affected communities” (Crow et al., 1992). Richmond civic representative While the accord does not specifically address secondary Saint Joseph of Berea Hospital wastes, CWWG says it intends to cover what it considers to be agent-contaminated wastes. Its stated views on secondary Nonvoting members wastes are essentially the same as those of the CDCAB as a U.S. Senator’s Office whole (see also Box 5-2). Kentucky Division of Emergency Management CWWG brings to the Blue Grass community its long- Blue Grass Chemical Activity term involvement with secondary wastes at other sites, Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection including the Newport Chemical Agent Disposal Facility Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives in Indiana, where it has gone to court, unsuccessfully thus Blue Grass Army Depot far, to prevent the offsite disposal of hydrolysate from the neutralization of VX nerve agent. It also reports what it con- SOURCE: Adapted from PMACWA, 2007a. siders successful cooperation with the Army’s Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project in helping select a technology and location for disposing of much of the waste produced from treatment of chemical weapons materiel recovered from burial sites. CWWG and its affiliates actively participated to the CDCAB as a whole. The CDCAB passed two resolu- in the Core Group of the Non-Stockpile Project. Although tions in 2007 and one in early 2008 on waste disposition, all the Core Group was initially modeled on the original ACWA by consensus. Two addressed agent hydrolysate and the other Dialogue, it was not confined to communities with facilities addressed noncontaminated energetic wastes. managed by the Army’s chemical demilitarization programs. The October 8, 2007, CDCAB resolutions on treatment In fact, a CWWG spokeswoman suggested that ACWA might of noncontaminated rocket motors repeated the board’s benefit from a national advisory body like the Core Group, earlier position indicating potential support for either offsite which would include representatives of communities where recycling at a government facility or treatment at the planned treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) receive BGCAPP supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) facility. The resolutions also supported study of the use of the static Information provided to the committee by Craig Williams, director, detonation chamber for noncontaminated rocket motors only CWWG, March 24, 2008. The ACWA Dialogue was a group that operated during the technology (CDCAB, 2007). selection phase of the ACWA program. It consisted of representatives of The CDCAB generally accepts the offsite shipment and the various stakeholder constituencies and was moderated by the Keystone disposal of secondary wastes, including closure wastes (other Center. 

42 Review of secondary waste disposal Planning chemical weapons stored there. Recent studies dealing with Box 5-2 the possibility of offsite treatment of disposal of hydrolysate Meeting Between Committee Chair have triggered opposition. and an Employee of the Environmental On April 9, 2007, the CDCAB recommended that “all Protection Agency Assigned to agent and energetic hydrolysate generated at the BGCAPP Serve as Liaison to Cwwg should be treated on site via the secondary treatment pro- cess identified in the 2003 Record of Decision—SCWO” On May 23, 2008, in an effort to ensure that the committee con- (CDCAB, undated, p. 1). It listed reasons such as contro- siders all sources of information and listens to groups that may versies and uncertainties associated with transportation have an impact on secondary waste management at the two ACWA and treatment at commercial facilities; the initial Record sites, Peter Lederman, the chair of the committee, met with Marsha of Decision for the design of BGCAPP, which included the Marsh, a participant in the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobil- use of SCWO; the economic benefits of local work; and a ity Program,1 who had been assigned to the CWWG from the U.S. belief that offsite disposition would result in minimal cost Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Homeland Security. savings. In addition, members of the CDCAB told the com- One topic was how National Research Council committees operate to mittee that they believe that the Army has not demonstrated ensure that they are independent. Some past studies were discussed a method that adequately characterizes VX concentrations as examples of the work the National Research Council has done in VX hydrolysate. over the years. At the request of Craig Williams of the CWWG, Ms. In January 2008, in response to Army plans to expedi- Marsh provided several pertinent documents: L. Ember in C&EN tiously dispose of the materials contained in the three one-ton March 24, “Review of the modified method for analysis of VX hy- containers stored at the BGCA, the CDCAB recommended drolysate; and Declaration of Michael Sommers II, Ph.D., before the on-site storage of hydrolysate “until such time as adequate U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana, Case No. 2:07-cv-101. The information is gathered to determine the most appropri- committee had already received these documents so no additional ate course of action for [its] final disposition.” (CDCAB, information was provided to the committee. 2008). Although the BGAD project to dispose of ton contain- 1The Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program provides for ers is not within the scope of this study, CDCAB members the temporary assignment of Federal Government personnel to state and made it clear to committee members they were concerned local governments, colleges and universities, Indian tribal governments, that offsite treatment of those wastes might set a precedent federally funded research and development centers, and other eligible for the offsite disposal of BGCAPP agent hydrolysate. organizations. Kentucky opponents of offsite shipment and disposal of agent hydrolysate have made it clear that they intend to go beyond just giving advice through the CDCAB: They say they will use their political influence, the permitting process, and perhaps even legal action to oppose such shipments. wastes from BGCAPP and PCAPP and would be formed While it is not clear whether they will be able to prevent for the purpose of reviewing proposals for offsite waste offsite shipment, under existing statutes and regulations they shipment. Since many TSDFs are situated in communities are clearly in a position to delay it. If the Program Manager of color and low-income communities, CWWG suggests that for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (PMACWA) environmental justice—particularly the need to consider the decides to rely upon offsite treatment and disposal for neu- cumulative impact of toxic exposures—would call for efforts tralization wastes, the decision may delay the demilitariza- to involve such communities. tion process itself (see Chapter 6). Still, at least one member of the community has spoken forcefully in favor of offsite disposal of hydrolysate, ques- Issues Specific to the Treatment of BGCAPP Hydrolysates tioning the effectiveness of the SCWO process (Shannon, In Kentucky, community members view DOD’s 2002 2008). selection of neutralization followed by supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) as a commitment to the community. To- PCAPP Stakeholder INTERACTIONS AND Issues gether with Blue Grass Army Depot, the Assembled Chemi- cal Weapons Alternatives program has worked with the com- Mechanisms for Public Outreach and Involvement munity in selecting neutralization followed by supercritical water oxidation (SCWO) as the technology to destroy the The Pueblo community, like its counterpart in Kentucky, has a long history of public involvement in the oversight Comments to the committee by Elizabeth Crowe, Kentucky Environ- See http://www.pmacwa.army.mil/ky/technology.htm. mental Foundation, at a public meeting, January 24, 2008. Comments made at a public meeting on January 24, 2008. 

public participation 43 of storage and disposal of chemical warfare materiel at the Pueblo Chemical Depot (PCD). Local activists, in coalition Box 5-3 with those in Kentucky, persuaded Congress to establish Members of Colorado Chemical alternatives to incineration. Demilitarization Citizens’ The ACWA program at Pueblo operates a robust, tiered Advisory Commission public outreach and involvement program. In pursuing the goal, which is to provide consistent opportunities for public Chair (local resident) involvement and encourage community participation in the District Attorney’s Office decision-making process, it collaborates with the Colorado County Commissioner Chemical Demilitarization CAC; involves elected officials, Plumbers and Pipefitters Union regulatory and emergency management agencies, and the Retired judge workforce; and informs other community entities (PMAC- Adjacent property owner WA, 2008c). Sierra Club The Pueblo Chemical Stockpile Outreach Office main- Governor’s Office of Policy and Initiatives tains a mailing list of more than 2,000 people, publishes a Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment newsletter and project updates, and runs a speakers bureau that makes presentations to civic groups, business organiza- SOURCE: Adapted from PMACWA, 2007b. tions, local officials, and more than 3,000 students each year. In particular, the committee is pleased with the outreach office’s efforts to inform difficult-to-reach constituencies, such as Spanish-speaking migrant workers in the community of Avondale, near PCD. The outreach office also supports followed by the biological treatment of hydrolysate. For the quasi-governmental local reuse authority, which is plan- example, in June 2005 it resolved as follows: ning for the reuse of PCD real estate once demilitarization The Colorado Chemical Demilitarization Citizens’ Advisory is completed. Commission (CAC) and the Pueblo community are commit- At the time the committee visited Pueblo (see Appendix ted to the safe and effective destruction of chemical weapons. A), the local ACWA public affairs position was vacant and The use of neutralization/biotreatment, with as much of the the PCD public affairs officer was a new hire. It would seem process completed on site, remains, in the opinion of the obvious that when potentially controversial decisions are be- CAC and a majority of the citizens in the Pueblo commu- ing made, the Army’s various public affairs and involvement nity, the safest and most publicly acceptable method for the programs in Pueblo should be fully staffed. destruction of the weapons stored at the Pueblo Chemical The focal point for public discussion of the Army’s de- Depot (PCD). militarization plans at Pueblo is the CAC. Formed in 1993, the commission’s members are appointed by the Colorado In fact, CAC members assert that their support expedited the governor and administered by a Colorado Department of regulatory review of the program by CDPHE. Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) official (see also The CAC has consistently opposed the offsite shipment Box 5-3). While some CAC documents are found on the of untreated hydrolysate (see next section). It has also re- ACWA Web site, CDPHE maintains a complete archive of viewed the offsite shipment of dunnage (wooden pallets and CAC activity. Its Web site explains as follows: boxes) and energetics (propellants, fuses, and bursters) and issued a series of recommendations in which it opposes the The Citizens’ Advisory Commission consists of nine mem- offsite shipment of agent-contaminated dunnage and energet- bers—seven are members of the community at-large and two ics as well as unstable energetics. Before the Army submis- are state officials. The Governor appointed each Citizens’ sion of the Waste Analysis Plan for PCAPP, the CAC called Advisory Commission member to serve an unlimited term at for analytical procedures to determine reliably whether any his or his successor’s discretion. Although the Colorado Citi- such substances are contaminated with agent (Colorado zens’ Advisory Commission receives limited federal funding CAC, undated; Vincent, 2005).10 from the Department of Defense, it operates independent of The CAC has supported the recycling of decontaminated Army influence. munitions bodies, but it has not directly taken positions on other secondary or closure wastes, such as personal protec- CAC Positions and Resolutions tive equipment and carbon filters.11 The CAC would probably Since its inception, the CAC has been supportive of the Letter from John Klomp, chair, Colorado CAC, to PMACWA, June design proposed in 2003 for PCAPPthat is, neutralization 29, 2005. 10Ibid. 11Letter from Irene L. Kornelly, chair, Colorado CAC, to Peter Lederman, See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/pcdcac.htm. committee chair, February 12, 2008. 

44 Review of secondary waste disposal Planning apply the same principles that it has applied to dunnage, disposal are clearly prepared to utilize political and regula- metals, and energetics. That is, communities near PCD want tory strategies to prevent or at least delay offsite hydrolysate assurances that materials are not contaminated with mustard disposal. Chapter 6 describes the additional permitting and agent before being shipped offsite for reuse or disposal. environmental assessment requirements that would be trig- gered by a decision to ship hydrolysate offsite. While there is active community opposition to offsite Issues Specific to the Treatment of PCAPP Hydrolysates shipment of agent-contaminated hydrolysate, most parties The CAC and other active members of the Pueblo agree that the community at large is more concerned about community have repeatedly opposed the offsite shipment the continuing presence of chemical weapons in the area. of agent hydrolysate for treatment and disposal. They view The local daily newspaper, the Pueblo Chieftain, represented biotreatment as a proven, reliable technology and consider this sentiment in an editorial applauding the President’s fiscal any transportation of agent hydrolysate to be inherently more year 2009 proposal to boost ACWA funding: “This project risky than keeping it onsite for further treatment. has been delayed far too long. It’s time to stop the foot- On January 31, 2007, the CAC endorsed the follow- dragging and get rid of these aging munitions” (Chieftain, ing recommendation of its Design Options Working Group 2008). (DOWG): The Design Options Working Group recommends to the CO UNDERLYING FACTORS IN BOTH COMMUNITIES CAC that the CO CAC affirm its position that on-site treat- The committee believes that the dominant commu- ment of hydrolysate be conducted at PCAPP and that off-site nity point of view—opposition to offsite hydrolysate treat- treatment of hydrolysate be rejected. This decision is based, ment—in both Kentucky and Colorado is a function of four in part, on review of the financial analysis presented to the principal considerations: CO CAC at the December 8, 2006 meeting and review of the recently released Mitretek and Lean-Six-Sigma reports.12 1. In the early 1990s, community groups in stockpile host communities agreed not to support shipment That is, the CAC doubted that offsite treatment would save to other communities. This was in part a strategic time or money, but it left the door open should new evidence decision. The groups who formed the CWWG, some emerge. In its February 2007 letter transmitting the above of whom had previously espoused a not-in-my-back- resolution to the ACWA leadership, it said that “as always, yard philosophy, found that their alliance amplified the CO CAC and the DOWG are open to reviewing this their political effectiveness at the national level. decision if new information on hydrolysate transportation is 2. The belief that hydrolysate may contain levels of made available to the public.”13 chemical agent that are too hazardous to transport Opposition around Pueblo to the shipment of agent safely. Some community members expressed con- hydrolysate is based on essentially the same arguments as cern that the Army and its contractors do not yet the opposition at Blue Grass (see earlier section “Issues have adequate methods for sampling and analyzing Specific to the Treatment of BGCAPP Hydrolysates”). hydrolysate in transportation containers. But the Pueblo opponents openly make an argument sup- ported by the two studies mentioned in the January 31, 3. The understanding that ACWA had committed to onsite hydrolysate treatment when it signed the re- 2007, resolutionnamely, that anticipated opposition to cords of decision for the two sites in 2002 (Pueblo) offsite shipment will make it impossible to save money. and 2003 (Blue Grass). Community members are Although the Army informed the CAC that $150 million dismayed and believe that the offsite option keeps might be saved if the Pueblo agent hydrolysate were shipped coming up because DOD has already decided to offsite, the CAC replied that the projected savings ignored implement it. “risk factors such as community opposition and permitting 4. The concern that offsite treatment of agent-contami- delays to name just two possible risks.”14 Put another way, nated wastes (even at low levels) may take place in community members oppose this scenario because some of economically depressed communities that call for the community members might oppose it, causing delays environmental justice because they already may be and cost increases. Because offsite treatment would require disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards a permit modification and a new Pueblo County certifica- and in many cases lack the resources and expertise to tion of designation, opponents could indeed delay any such challenge such a decision. change. As in Kentucky, opponents of offsite shipment and 12Letter Critics of offsite hydrolysate disposal have firmed up from John Klomp, chair, Colorado CAC, to Michael Parker, their opposition in response to the shipment of hydrolysate director, CMA, February 14, 2007. 13Ibid. from the Newport Chemical Depot. After public opposition 14Ibid. caused treatment facilities in Ohio and New Jersey to reject 

public participation 45 such shipments, the Army shipped the waste to Port Arthur, expressed serious concern about the disposition of secondary Texas, without announcing it to the general public, although wastes other than hydrolysate from BGCAPP and PCAPP. the shipments were coordinated through agencies of the af- However, they want technical assurance that the materials fected states. Opponents of offsite hydrolysate disposal vow are not contaminated with agent, as defined by the minimum to prevent a similar result at Blue Grass and Pueblo. detection level, before being transported offsite for reuse or disposal. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 5-5. There is substantial local opposition to offsite Finding 5-1. Through the Kentucky Chemical Demilitariza- shipment and disposal of hydrolysate from both BGCAPP tion Citizens’ Advisory Commission (CAC) and the CAC’s and PCAPP. Local groups can be expected to forestall any subsidiary Chemical Destruction Community Advisory such action by protracting the permitting process or the en- Board, as well as public affairs activities that include the Blue vironmental review (if there is one) as well as by instigating Grass Chemical Stockpile Outreach Office and public meet- political action and litigation. ings, the communities around the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD) have ample opportunity to learn about BGCAPP Recommendation 5-1. To avoid potential misunderstandings operations as well as proposed secondary waste disposal. and obstacles, the PMACWA should explain in advance, and The ACWA program and its contractors do an effective job solicit feedback on, any proposals to ship wastes from BG- of cooperating with and supporting these organizations. CAPP and PCAPP. Special efforts should be made to include a diverse representation of the stakeholder communities. Finding 5-2. Through the Colorado Chemical Demilitariza- tion Citizens’ Advisory Commission, as well as a public Recommendation 5-2. The PMACWA should explain to the affairs program that includes the Pueblo Chemical Stockpile public precisely how it plans to determine whether a particu- Outreach Office and its field activities, the communities lar waste stream is suitable for shipment, including analytical around Pueblo Chemical Depot have ample opportunity to procedures for showing whether the stream contains any learn about PCAPP operations as well as proposed second- residual contamination by an agent or its by-products. ary waste disposal. The ACWA program and its contractors do an effective job of cooperating with and supporting these Recommendation 5-3. The PMACWA should identify organizations. and factor into its decision-making processes the potential consequences of public opposition to offsite shipment and Finding 5-3. Communities that might be affected by the disposal of hydrolysate. transportation and offsite disposal of secondary and closure waste do not at present have an official forum through which Recommendation 5-4. Before making any final decision, they can interact with the ACWA program. the PMACWA should consider expanding its public forum to represent key stakeholder communities as it considers the Finding 5-4. Members of the communities around the Blue possible offsite shipment of hydrolysate from the primary Grass Army Depot and the Pueblo Chemical Depot have not neutralization of agent.