Gail E. Rymer
M4 Environmental
ABSTRACT
Over the past decade, environmental regulations have changed to recognize the role the public plays in determining how to best deal with hazardous waste. The public's demand for a voice in the decision-making process and a rejection of decisions that are mandated by outside interests have led to a change in the way companies and government are doing business.
One such company that recognized the importance of stakeholder involvement in the selection of government contractors was M4 Environmental Management. Formed in 1994, the company was the limited partnership of aerospace giant Lockheed Martin Corporation and the innovative technology company Molten Metal Technology, Inc. The company's mission was to provide innovative technologies that were an environmentally friendly solution to the federal government's most problematic wastes. The company immediately included community outreach as one of the major program areas, both in the communities in which the company was located as well as in its efforts to win government contracts. One such contract the company chose to pursue was that of the U.S. Army's Chemical Demilitarization Program.
THE MARKETPLACE -- DISPOSAL OF CHEMICAL AGENT
Since World War II, the United States has produced and stored chemical agent as a deterrent against its use by enemies. While we have never used these weapons, the stockpile has been maintained at seven sites located throughout the country. In 1969 the Army and the scientific community began its search for the safest, most environmentally sound method for disposing of the chemical weapons stockpile. From these scientific investigations, the Army developed a baseline incineration program for the disposal process. The Army's selection of incineration technology for the disposal of chemical weapons has resulted in an organized and vocal opposition in communities at the seven stockpile sites.
In addition, the Army's interactions with these communities has continued to erode at their credibility with the citizens. According to community research conducted in 1993, the Army failed to involve the public in the decision-making process, failed to acknowledge the community's issues and concerns as real, and continued to conduct the technical program in line with deadlines and deliverables dictated from Washington, D.C. As a result, the program has suffered schedule delays of 10 years, budget cost growth to over $12 billion, and poor press on their performance, due in large part to community opposition. The program has transitioned from a strictly technical to a political and public one as well.
In 1993, the Army began an Alternative Technology Program and began their own development of a more public-acceptable neutralization process. But even with this technology, they did not seek public involvement in the decision-making process. In 1995, the Army agreed to solicit commercial vendors to determine if there were other technologies available that could destroychemical agent that were not an incineration or combustion process. A Commerce Business Daily Announcement in the summer of 1995 resulted in 21 responses from commercial technology companies. Of those, three were chosen to continue in an evaluation phase that included the Army's own neutralization process. After extensive evaluation, one would be selected to move forward to a demonstration phase for two of the Army's stockpile sites, Aberdeen, Maryland and Newport, Indiana. M4 Environmental was one of three companies selected to "compete" to continue in the Alternative Technology Program.
THE CHALLENGE -- APPLYING THE RESEARCH
An extensive research project had been conducted by the Army regarding the community viewpoints of the chemical stockpile disposal program. It provided a great deal of insight into issues and concerns that existed, both at a local and national level. The research clearly showed that the Army's lack of public involvement in the decision-making process had created a lack of trust in their ability to safely and effectively dispose of chemical weapons. Establishment of trust and credibility by the company was essential in addressing the sensitive issues of disposing of deadly, chemical agent, especially for a new company and a new technology. The company had six months to establish that credibility in Aberdeen and Newport. This research provided the basis by which the company reviewed its technology to determine what could potentially prove to be an issue or concern. It was instrumental in identifying key messages, developing information materials, targeting audiences, and even designing the footprint of the facility.
Once this initial information was developed, it was reviewed by an integrated team of employees from public relations, marketing, technical support, operations, and management. It was emphasized that the information from every employee needed to be easy-to-understand, consistent, and confident. An extensive employee communication program was established to accomplish this objective, which included an electronic newsletter each Friday and numerous team building activities. Information products and marketing materials were made widely available to all employees. Numerous employees were asked to "volunteer" to support public relations activities, including tours, open houses, and media inquiries. The result was a "one-voice" approach that contained the key messages designed for success.
The focus for activities was placed on "one-on-one" communication. To influence or gain acceptance by the citizens of Aberdeen and Newport, it would be necessary to affect change in these communities. Simply providing information would not develop the credibility or relationships that would be necessary to allow the company to do business in these communities. A number of key audiences were identified and the persons within those audiences who influence opinion were targeted for contacting.
These audiences included the key state and national legislators, regulators, State Chemical Demilitarization Citizens Advisory Commission members, advocacy groups, local government officials, local education officials, commerce leaders, and other persons who had been active in the chemical weapons disposal program. Individuals from each of these groups were paired with person(s) from the company for face-to-face communications where it could be assured that key messages were understood and subsequent issues or concerns could be identified and answered atthat time if possible. Many of these meetings resulted in referral meetings to groups or individuals that were key to doing business in the community.
A considerable amount of time was spent talking with the communities. This proved invaluable in addressing issues and concerns in a timely and accurate fashion for the communities, the Army, and its technical oversight review body -- the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. Had it not been for these interactions, the company might have been unaware of what became their biggest obstacle to success -- their potential client.
THE COMPETITION -- OVERCOMING THE OBSTACLES
One of the greatest obstacles was the preconceptions created by the Army about the alternative technologies under evaluation. In reviewing the alternative technologies for application to the disposal of the chemical weapons stockpile, the Army and its support contractors chose to classify the technologies by temperature and pressure. From the first workshop held in Washington, D.C. in September 1995, each of the more than 20 technologies participating were categorized as "high" or "low" temperature and "high" or "low" pressure. While many other attributes may have been used, the Army has historically classified technologies using terms aligned closely with their baseline incineration process to facilitate comparisons.
The terms stuck as the only means by which the alternative technologies are compared. From a public acceptance standpoint, high temperature and high pressure are inherent to the Army's baseline incineration system, which the public strongly opposed. The risk associated with that system has given these terms their negative connotation with the public. To many citizens, high temperature means incineration, high pressure translates to potential explosions or releases, and the use of these terms ends any dialogue on the technology. As a result, the public's reaction is to seek an alternative that does not have these attributes.
The Army further enhanced those perceptions in their January 1996 public information meetings. Army representatives presented information on the three private sector technologies using temperature and pressure to compare them to their own neutralization process, in which these characteristics are absent. They presented their technology as "benign" in comparison to those that used high temperature and high pressure. These were the first and only meetings to inform the citizens in the communities that will be impacted by the selected technology for disposal of the chemical agent stockpile -- Aberdeen, Maryland and Newport, Indiana.
Following the Army's public information sessions, the NRC held hearings to gain public input on the selection of alternatives. At one of the Maryland meetings, the NRC heard from several citizens emphasizing low temperature and low pressure. They kept referring to wanting a "benign" process. At one hearing, the co-chair of the Maryland Citizens Advisory Commission, set up by Congress to gain community input and opinions, went on record as saying the Commission preferred neutralization as the chosen alternative technology because of its benign nature.
At another meeting in Maryland, public input was less adamant about low temperature and low pressure, but expressed desire for an acceptable alternative to take care of destroying thechemical agent in a "benign" way. Again, the co-chair went on record supporting the Army's neutralization process. The only other interest expressed was to pursue an alternative that could deal with the whole problem of disposal (agent and ton containers with limited secondary waste needing treatment and disposal) in order to get on with the economic development activities hindered by the chemical agent's presence.
At the Indiana meetings, the majority of the speakers expressed their desire not to have an incinerator built and to have an alternative technology that could destroy the agent with a "benign" process. However, other than these few comments, no additional issues or attributes that might have effectively been used to evaluate the technologies were introduced.
As a result of these meetings, the company knew it was important to begin working with the public in these communities to 1) define the characteristics associated with a benign process, 2) discuss the use of high temperature not as a combustion process (i.e., incineration) but as the only effective means of immediate destruction of chemical agent, and 3) explain the company's technology and its total treatment of the chemical agent, ton containers, dunnage and decontamination.
REVIEWING THE RESULTS
Over a period of three months, the company's representatives visited local citizens, environmental interest groups, state regulators, local elected officials, Citizens Advisory Commission members, and business groups. Through these meetings, community members displayed an increased willingness to look at high temperature technologies as a possible choice for application in destroying the chemical agent. As more people became familiar with the commercial alternative process, its advantages in destroying chemical agent, its designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as "best available technology" to replace incineration, and the absence of waste streams to mitigate from processing (incumbent to neutralization), their reception became favorable. When not associated with incineration technology, members of the community began to understand the merits of these attributes in destroying chemical agent.
Representatives from the communities were invited to tour the company's facilities. After receiving an in-depth briefing on the technology, meeting community representatives from the area surrounding the facility, and having an opportunity to "kick the tires," a number of the participants expressed their beliefs that the technology could handle the bulk agents and they had a better understanding of the temperature and pressure issues and accepted the technology as a solution for the chemical agent.
A Maryland Delegate and County Deputy Sheriff, after touring the facility, announced to those attending that he felt that if the company was willing to bring Greenpeace and Citizen Advisory Commission members and newspaper reporters together in the same room at the same time with no fear, then that was the kind of integrity needed by the public for the destruction of the mustard at Aberdeen.
A retired chemical engineer from Aberdeen Proving Ground and a proponent of a benign process, was reported to have gone back to Aberdeen and told Army chemical program personnel that the process works. He has also told members of the Maryland Citizens Advisory Commission and local county citizens that he feels the process is a good choice.
After visiting the facility, a member of the Indiana's Citizens Against Incineration of Nerve Gas, said he believed that the company's process is the safest, simplest and best alternative he's seen.
Upon request, the company has provided the communities with the demonstrations of their technical competence through presentations by their staff, tours of their facilities, and reviews by industry trade journals. Building on the company's commitment to openness and community involvement, the stockpile communities were encouraged to talk to citizens living and working near the operating facilities.
As a result of the comments received, the company representatives have felt encouraged that the more interaction with members of the public on all of the alternative technologies, the less of an issue the temperature and pressure attributes become overall. More and more community members in Aberdeen and Newport understand the role temperature plays in the immediate destruction of agent. They continue to remark about the "simplicity" of the system where the agent is treated in one unit and neutralized in a fraction of a second. The process doesn't require multiple units or a long period of time to complete the neutralization process.
Company representatives found through their interactions that the public is extremely concerned about the secondary waste problem and want a solution that takes care of the agent, ton containers, and can be cleaned up and taken away. Interestingly, these concerns are inherent to the Army's neutralization program. While the company did not openly make comparisons with the Army's neutralization program, it was imperative that the company ensure that the communities understood how the company's process recycles the ton containers and the agent, resulting in a limited amount of secondary waste.
Part of the success in the communities came from providing independent studies and third party endorsements on how the process worked. These included the U.S. Department of Energy's ranking of the technology as the best in several non-thermal categories and the EPA's designation as the "best demonstrated available technology for those hazardous wastes for which incineration was the only alternative.
The company has even seen support from those who already understood the benefits of high temperature in destroying the agent. A letter received from the director of the Baltimore County Maryland Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program sums up well what was being heard from stakeholders: "... until recently, I was convinced that incineration was the only true means of destruction of this agent and the research on alternative technologies was a waste of time and money. However, the catalytic extraction process has caused me to give further thought to an alternative method of destruction. CEP appears to be more efficient, less costly, and more acceptable to the public than incineration or the other proposed alternative methods."
At a public meeting held by the Indiana Citizens Advisory Commission to seek input and comments on the use of alternative technologies, the overwhelming majority of the public felt the Army should pursue two technologies -- recommending neutralization and M4's process. The Commission later officially voted to recommend to the Army that they go forward with M4 and the Army's neutralization program to ensure that incineration is not the method used for disposal. The company is confident that without the integrated outreach effort to gain trust and credibility in the community, the impact would not have been the same.
The efforts In Maryland and Indiana have paid other dividends for the company. Through opposition groups and the Citizens Advisory Commissions, other stockpile sites have become interested in the Army's alternative technology program and several have held informational sessions and workshops to inform local community members, state regulators, and Citizen Advisory Commission members. As a result of these sessions, the company received a number of inquiries and referrals. One such referral was the NHK Japanese Broadcast network by the president of the Utah Sierra Club. A television producer and his film crew were researching the U.S. Chemical Demilitarization Program for public television broadcast in Japan. The Sierra Club member recommended the company as having a "technology that works."
The technical advisor for the national Sierra Club has referred numerous people to the company and has said in meetings that the technology works and that he feels it can do the job at the sites under investigation as well as having potential for other stockpile sites. Based on the information the company has made available and the people it has contacted, a professor at Jacksonville State University in Jacksonville, Alabama, prepared an independent talk on the technology as a chemical demilitarization alternative. The university is located near one of the stockpile sites (Anniston, Alabama) and the proposed incineration is very much a local issue. From the materials and third party endorsements, Dr. P.S. Yeh stated that he, as a professional engineer, believed that the company could do what they say they can do.
As the company representatives continue to meet with more and more community members, the less is heard about temperature and pressure as an issue. The community members are beginning to understand the technology, and agree that it takes more than a fact sheet or a meeting or two to fully understand the various alternatives and their applications to the bulk stored agents. While the community relations persons working in the communities were termed "salespeople" by the Army, members of the community complimented the company on being there and being interested. Each interaction led to another, with referrals and introductions often being provided by members of the community. This allowed the company to obtain transference of credibility from a third party, enhancing communications from the onset in the community. The head environmental regulator in Indiana publicly commented on the outreach effort of the company saying the type of outreach and communication displayed by the company was the way he wanted his department to do business.
In addition, the technical evaluations by the Army's Materiel Systems Analysis Activity has also supported the technology, favorably rating it for use at Newport, and stated that it meets all criteria for use at both sites. The NRC, while recommending neutralization, also confirmed the company's technology can meet the needs of the bulk agent disposal. Their recommendation of neutralization was based, according to their report, on their first hearings held early in the process where the public talked about "benign" process and low temperature and low pressure.
The latest development in the Army's Chemical Demilitarization Program has been a Congressional-mandated expansion of the Alternative Technology Program to include two additional sites, Pueblo, Colorado and Blue Grass, Kentucky. These sites offer further challenges in that the agent is contained in munitions with explosives. The company is confident that with continued support and interactions in these communities, the Department of Defense will agree that the technology can safely and effectively dispose of our nation's chemical weapons stockpile.