Review and Evaluation of Alternative Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
10 Public Acceptance of Alternative Technologies
10 Public Acceptance of Alternative Technologies
Pages 156-171
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 156... ...
The second is the decision to identify and demonstrate at least two alternative technologies that may address the objections that have been raised most frequently by interest groups and the public. This committee was asked to "gather data and analyze information on stakeholder interests at the assembled chemical weapons storage site locations..." to help the Army assess the prospects for public acceptance of alternative technologies.
|
From page 157... ...
The discussion addresses how the process and the basic characteristics of the proposed alternative technologies are likely to influence public acceptance and the role of environmental permitting in public acceptance of alternative technologies. The final section summarizes the committee' s findings concerning public acceptance and provides general recommendations for improving the prospects for public acceptance of alternative chemical-weapons disposal technologies.
|
From page 158... ...
In policy debates over risk, the level of trust of the agencies charged with carrying out the potentially risky activity weighs heavily in shaping public responses (Flynn et al., 1992; Leiss and Chociolko,1994~. In general, when all else is equal, members of the public appear to give greater credence to arguments that risks are large than to arguments that risks are small (Jenkins-Smith and Basett,1994~.
|
From page 159... ...
The public evaluation of alternative technologies is very likely to take place in the context of the ongoing policy debate on the disposal of chemical weapons. Therefore, the prospects for public acceptance of the alternative technologies can best be understood as part of the more general process surrounding public-policy controversies.
|
From page 160... ...
... PUBLIC REACTION TO THE ARMY'S BASELINE CHEMICAL WEAPONS INCINERATION PROG RAM An understanding of the possible public reactions to alternative technologies for the destruction of chemical weapons can be gained by an evaluation of the Army's experience with the ongoing chemical weapons destruction program.
|
From page 161... ...
Nevertheless, it is possible to identify some of the persistent public concerns about chemical weapons destruction technologies: the potential for catastrophic failure and a massive release of agent into nearby communities low levels of agent escaping into the air through smokestacks, with potential for long-term chronic health effects monitoring processes that take only periodic samples of stack emissions only identify "afterthe-fact" releases of agent or other toxins ("once the alarm goes off, it' s already too late") · technologies that dispose of hazardous materials at high pressures and high temperatures · the continued use of a chemical weapons destruction facility for other hazardous wastes once the iiSee, for example, the charge by environmental groups that the NRC's 1993 report on alternative technologies for chemical weapons destruction is "politicized" (Defense Environment Alert, 1994)
|
From page 162... ...
17 The nine CAC members for each site are appointed by the governors and are required to meet with a representative of the Secretary of the Army to provide "citizen and state concerns regarding the ongoing program" of chemical weapons disposal. Despite these mechanisms for involvement, public outreach for the chemical weapons destruction program has been heavily criticized by outside activists (Smithson, 1 994; Futrell and Davies, 1 996; Sierra Club [Utah Chapter]
|
From page 163... ...
Partly because of the problematic history of public involvement in the chemical weapons disposal decisions, opponents of incineration have made effective use of available policy venues for delaying and in some cases halting the Army's efforts to develop and implement baseline incineration facilities at chemical i9In part, the Army public relations programs have been hampered by confusion with the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) , which is responsible for planning and response to chemical stockpile incidents.
|
From page 164... ...
This history of schedule delays and cost increases can be partly attributed to the Army's inability to obtain broad public acceptance of chemical weapons disposal options. PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE TECH NOLOG I ES Given the history of public responses to the Army's past and present chemical weapons disposal program, gaining public acceptance of alternative technologies will face many of the same hurdles that have confronted (and continue to confront)
|
From page 165... ...
Given the very aggressive schedule required under the provisions of the CWC, ACWA hoped that the Dialogue process would result in consensus or at least reduce conflict among interest groups, regulatory agencies, and the Army on the identification and demonstration of alternative chemical weapons disposal technologies and reduce political, legal, and regulatory obstacles to demonstrating and, perhaps, implementing alternative technologies for chemical weapons destruction. The Dialogue process was initiated to diminish the kinds of conflict, delays, and budget increases that have plagued the baseline incineration program.
|
From page 166... ...
participants were willing to engage in the Dialogue process to seek consensus on the selection and demonstration of alternative technologies. The selected participants were drawn from a number of organizations, including CACs (members and former members)
|
From page 167... ...
Representatives of citizen interest groups were at a serious disadvantage. To address this problem, the ACWA program provided funding for the Dialogue to select and hire a technical consultants to provide independent technical information and participate in the Dialogue oversight of the Army's evaluation of the alternative technologies.
|
From page 168... ...
AS these steps indicate, the Dialogue has had ample opportunities to provide input into the selection of alternative technologies and to observe that their input has been seriously considered. The ACWA program has thus met the criteria for meaningful input from the Dialogue participants.
|
From page 169... ...
169 Implications of the ACWA Dialogue for Public Acceptance This discussion is limited to the implications of Dialogue participation on public acceptance of alternatives to incineration because the implications for public acceptance of the baseline incineration process may depend on the as yet unknown outcome of the ACWA process.34 If one or more viable alternative technologies are identified through the ACWA process, and if the Dialogue concurs in that assessment, the organized interest groups that have opposed incineration in the past may well support the alternatives. One of the chief procedural objections to incineration the absence of meaningful public input will have been addressed by the Dialogue.
|
From page 170... ...
TECHNOLOGY ATTRIBUTES AN D PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE The committee is not aware of any reliable data on public perceptions of the acceptability of alternative technologies for chemical weapons destruction. However, based on public statements from public hearings and the positions of organized interest groups, the committee arrived at several general findings.
|
From page 171... ...
Although continuous public monitoring may not be necessary or appropriate in all cases, it may be necessary for public acceptance in the communities that are most distrustful of the Army's chemical weapons disposal program.
|
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.