Review Criteria for Successful Treatment of Hydrolysate at the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Stakeholder Interests and Issues
3 Stakeholder Interests and Issues
Pages 21-27
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 21... ...
information products under government direction; partici pate in local activities, including staffing information booths at local events; operate a speakers bureau; maintain an active CURRENT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS educational program for classes ranging from kindergarten The public involvement process at BGCAPP is well through college; and arrange site tours.7 established and includes a variety of opportunities for stake- The CAC, established by Kentucky statute in 1994, com prises nine members appointed by the state governor. The 1 Stakeholders include personnel from the PEO ACWA, BGCAPP, Blue Grass Chemical Activity and Blue Grass Army Depot, the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection; members of the CAC/CDCAB, other 4 April 7, 2015, conference call with Miguel Monteverde, public affairs local members of the public, and members of the Kentucky Environmental specialist, PEO ACWA, and Sarah Parke, manager, Blue Grass Chemical Foundation and Chemical Weapons Working Group.
|
From page 22... ...
The committee also attempted to gather information from the broader public. The committee's site visit and public COMMITTEE APPROACH TO GATHERING meeting were advertised in the local media and on the PEO INFORMATION ACWA website; however, only one member of the public The committee gathered information about the interests attended and no input was received other than from the and viewpoints of local community members from several CAC/CDCAB.12 Both the CAC/CDCAB and outreach staff sources: from the site and PEO ACWA attributed the lack of input to residents' trust in the CAC/CDCAB to protect their interests • Open discussion at the committee's January 2015 and reported little evidence of recent community discussion meeting in Kentucky; about possible offsite hydrolysate shipment or the risks of • A public meeting, advertised in the local media continued storage of the chemical weapons.
|
From page 23... ...
headquarters, as well as the CAC chair and the CDCAB A number of aspects of the ACWA Dialogue policy co-chair, describe the current relationships between PEO process were notable from the perspective of CAC/CDCAB ACWA and the community as very positive. For example, members: in his opening statement at the January meeting, the CAC chair emphasized the importance of PEO ACWA's openness • Inclusion of both technical staff and local, lay repre and expressed appreciation for the trust and relationships that sentatives from the chemical weapons sites; PEO ACWA had built with the community that had turned • Inclusion of both technical and social criteria for around community residents' original opposition and lack of evaluating the technologies; trust.
|
From page 24... ...
He opined that members of the CAC/CDCAB Several themes arose among the concerns expressed by recognize there are bound to be issues with a pilot plant such the CAC chair and the CDCAB co-chair during the Janu- as BGCAPP, and failure of the supercritical water oxidation ary 2015 meeting and in a subsequent telephone interview. or other key processes could therefore pose a dilemma for These included the CAC/CDCAB's continuing opposition them.21 to offsite shipment of the hydrolysate, along with their very reluctant and conditional acceptance of such an outcome as a Decision Criteria last-resort contingency plan; their concerns about the impact of offsite hydrolysate shipment on receiving communities; The CAC/CDCAB presented to this committee a set of and their perspective on the criteria for making a decision criteria for offsite shipment of hydrolysate, should such a on whether offsite shipment of the hydrolysate would be move be deemed necessary.
|
From page 25... ...
No surprises on both sides, that is the current process for involvement in decisions as a transparent mantra of the chemical weapons program in Kentucky.26 "back-and-forth relationship" and that "if there is an issue that needs to be raised by us or them we work through it incrementally and work towards agreement about how to Concerns about the Impacts of Offsite Shipment on proceed. We have done this all the time and it has worked Receiving Communities each time." While recognizing that their legislated role is Concerns about meaningful public involvement expressed consultative and that they have "no authority to do anything," by the CAC/CDCAB extend to potential receiving communithey nevertheless noted that "we carry some weight because ties as well, in the event that offsite shipment of hydrolysate of how we operate.
|
From page 26... ...
Furthermore, they past experiences with offsite hydrolysate shipment, including expect PEO ACWA will continue to provide regular updates those that were quite controversial. The CDCAB co-chair on the status of operations as they evolve, to identify the warned also that trust and acceptance are not guaranteed technology and the location of receiving communities, and to and that, if hydrolysate shipments are needed, PEO ACWA consider previous positions on hydrolysate shipments of such and all parties involved would have to work out a process communities and the CAC/CDCAB, including pro ctive a for involving the receiving communities to avoid confron- information sharing and meaningful engagement.
|
From page 27... ...
2008. Review of Secondary Waste D isposal Planning for the Blue Grass and Pueblo Chemical Agent Recommendation 3-2. To maintain the existing policy of Destruction Pilot Plants.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.