Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program The ACWA Dialogue Process Presented To:

1. Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program The ACWA Dialogue Process Presented To: National Vaccine Advisory Committee’s Public Participation Working Group Bill Pehlivanian Deputy Program Manager September 14, 2004

2. Introduction • The Army’s technologies for destroying stockpiles of chemical weapons have been debated for many years by environmentalists, communities surrounding the stockpile sites, scientists, representatives of the chemical stockpile disposal program, regulatory agencies, and other interested parties. • The Army has historically supported incineration as its preferred method for the disposal of chemical weapons, while some community members, concerned about burning chemical weapons, have preferred to search for alternative technologies. • Congress, responding to community concerns, established the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA) program in 1996 with the mission to identify and demonstrate not less than two alternative technologies to baseline incineration. • The ACWA program, well aware of the concerns of community members, committed to establishing an innovative, open, and fully participatory public process. Page 2

3. Dialogue on ACWA • To facilitate the process of working with various stakeholders, the ACWA program enlisted the support of the Keystone Center to convene the various stakeholders into what was deemed the Dialogue on ACWA (“the Dialogue”). • The Dialogue was formally established in June 1997, consisted of approximately 32 members and met 13 times over five years before concluding in June 2002. • The Keystone Center is a not for profit organization that serves as a mediator and neutral facilitator on national public policy issues. Page 3

4. Dialogue Membership • The Keystone Center selected all initial Dialogue participants. • The Keystone Center attempted to ensure that: • Participants had diverse perspectives on chemical weapons destruction technologies, • All of the recognized “key parties” in the chemical weapons debate were included, and • Participants were willing to engage in the Dialogue process to seek consensus on the selection and demonstration of alternative technologies. • Dialogue participants included: • State, federal, and tribal regulators; • Community members from affected sites; and • National groups that regularly work on the issue of chemical demilitarization. Page 4

5. Citizens’ Advisory Technical Team • Some Dialogue participants noted the need for independent technical assistance to advise them throughout the program; therefore, PMACWA agreed to fund the Citizens’ Advisory Technical Team (CATT). • The CATT: • Included four Dialogue participants and a technical consulting firm; • Provided an independent review of the program for the Dialogue; • Signed confidentiality agreements allowing them to serve as the Dialogue’s “watchdog” at many ACWA internal meetings, including those dealing with procurement-sensitive information; • Provided Dialogue members with assurances that the technical program was being executed according to the commitments the program had made to the Dialogue; • Provided a mechanism for stakeholder input into the technology selection and evaluation process; and • Ensured maximum communication between the ACWA program and stakeholders while respecting ACWA’s legal and ethical responsibility to protect proprietary and trade secret information contained in proposals and other documents submitted by technology providers. Page 5

6. Dialogue Goal and Objectives • Dialogue Goal • Draw on a wide range of experience, perspectives and expertise in support of efforts to identify, demonstrate and deploy safe, effective and broadly acceptable methods of disposing of chemical munitions and any resulting materials and/or waste streams. • Dialogue Objectives • Solicit stakeholder input into the Congressionally mandated program at key decision-making points during the process including: • Assisting with the development of criteria for comparing technologies, • Providing input into the assessment of alternative technologies, and • Aiding in the determination of appropriate locations for technology demonstrations. Page 6

7. Dialogue Accomplishments • Participated in the development of the Program Evaluation Criteria. • Participated in the assessment of proposed alternative technologies using the Program Evaluation Criteria. • Met with and communicated with ACWA program throughout the demonstration planning, execution, and evaluation to discuss actions, reach consensus, and develop conclusions. • Provided input to ACWA program concerning the potential public acceptability of proposed alternative technologies. Note: The Dialogue recognized that by law, the Program Manager for ACWA had the ultimate decision authority throughout the entire program. Page 7

8. ACWA Accomplishments • Developed Program Evaluation Criteria in concert with the Dialogue in May-July 1997. • Issued Request for Proposals in July 1997. • Received thirteen original proposals. • Assessed proposed alternative technologies using the Program Evaluation Criteria in collaboration with the Dialogue. • Completed six demonstrations of alternative technologies. • Concluded that four are viable for pilot testing: • Neutralization followed by Biotreatment, • Neutralization followed by Supercritical Water Oxidation, • Electrochemical Oxidation, and • Neutralization followed by Transpiring Wall Supercritical Water Oxidation and Gas Phase Chemical Reduction. • Neutralization followed by Biotreatment selected as the technology for full-scale pilot testing at the Pueblo Chemical Depot. • Neutralization followed by Supercritical Water Oxidation selected as the technology for full-scale pilot testing at the Blue Grass Army Depot. Page 8

9. Post Dialogue Stakeholder Involvement • In 2003, the ACWA program was assigned responsibility for full-scale pilot testing of neutralization technologies to destroy the chemical weapons stockpiles at the Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado and Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. • This required the ACWA program to shift its focus from assessing chemical weapons disposal technologies to implementing full-scale pilot testing of alternative technologies at these sites. • The ACWA program continues to work closely with stakeholders by implementing community forums at each site to: • Share next steps with the community regarding chemical demilitarization, • Facilitate communication between ACWA and the community, • Assist the community in notifying ACWA of areas of interest, and • Determine mechanisms to allow the community and ACWA to work together effectively. Page 9

10. Current Pueblo Stakeholder Involvement Primary Involvement Mechanism: Colorado Chemical Demilitarization Citizens’ Advisory Commission Current Working Groups Public Involvement Working Group • To assess public involvement opportunities and ensure the community is informed • Sustainable Development Steering Committee Permitting Working Group • To expedite the planning, development and implementation of the environmental permitting process Acceleration Options Working Group • To study the potential impacts of accelerating the disposal of chemical weapons • In Sep 03, ACWA accepted the community’s request to pursue only: 1) on-site treatment of hydrolysate; and 2) off-site shipment for the treatment of uncontaminated and stable propellant and uncontaminated wood pallets Other Program Partners: • U.S. Army Pueblo Chemical Depot • Bechtel Pueblo Team • Pueblo County • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment • Colorado Citizens’ Advisory Commission and Working Groups • Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program • Army Field Support Command • U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville Page 10

11. Current Blue Grass Stakeholder Involvement Primary Involvement Mechanism: Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board Diverse, independent, non-partisan group representing community and providing advice on issues regarding the Blue Grass pilot plant • ~20 members including elected officials, local Army commanders, Citizens’ Advisory Commission members, Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program representatives, business, civic and religious leaders Objectives include: • Safe destruction of weapons • Environmental, health and safety issues • Sustainable economic development • Establishing community priorities regarding operations • Information sharing to the larger community Other Program Partners: • Blue Grass Army Depot and Chemical Activity • Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass Team • Madison County • Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection • Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board and Working Groups • Blue Grass Environmental Working Integrated Process Team • Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program • Army Field Support Command • U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville Page 11

12. Lessons Learned • Including the public in a meaningful way early in a program can improve an organization’s public image. • Educating stakeholders (and the general public) about a program enables them to become advocates, not just participants. • Stakeholder ownership can reduce the amount of public obstruction that is mounted against a controversial program. • Stakeholder involvement can slow a program down early in the process. However, stakeholder involvement will accelerate the ultimate decision process. Page 12

13. Backup Slides Page 13

14. Program Manager Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives – March 2002 Final Environmental Impact Statement issued for Colorado – May 2002 Final programmatic Environmental Impact Statement published – July 2002 Department of Defense selects neutralization followed by biotreatment as disposal method for Colorado stockpile – September 2002 Bechtel Pueblo Team awarded the contract to design, build, pilot test, operate and close Pueblo pilot plant – October 2002 Public Law 107-248 assigns ACWA responsibility for destruction of chemical weapons in Kentucky and Colorado if alternative technologies are chosen – December 2002 Final Environmental Impact Statement issued for Kentucky – February 2003 Department of Defense selects neutralization followed by supercritical water oxidation as disposal method for Kentucky stockpile – June 2003 ACWA name changed to Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives to reflect new role: overseeing destruction pilot plant projects in Colorado and Kentucky – June 2003 Bechtel Parsons Blue Grass awarded contract to design, build, pilot test, operate and close Blue Grass pilot plant – October 2003 Chemical Destruction Community Advisory Board established in Kentucky – September 1996 Outreach offices open in Kentucky and Colorado communities – September 1996 Public Law 104-208 establishes the ACWA program and provides funding to conduct a pilot program to identify and demonstrate at least two alternatives to incineration for the disposal of assembled chemical weapons – December 1996 Michael A. Parker is appointed ACWA program manager – 1986 Public Law 99-145 designates the Army as the organization responsible for the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile – 1993 Citizens’ Advisory Commissions created as part of the National Defense Authorization Act – 1995 Public Law 103-337 prohibits transportation of chemical stockpile munitions across state lines – January 1997 William J. Pehlivanian is appointed ACWA deputy program manager – April 1997 The United States ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty, which directs member nations to destroy their chemical weapons and production facilities – May 1997 ACWA begins innovative, open public participation process, known as the ACWA Dialogue – August 1999 Public Law 106-52 dictates that the Secretary of Defense certify demonstration of six incineration alternatives before funds are obligated for a disposal facility at Blue Grass Army Depot – October 1999 Public Law 106-79 authorizes the Department of Defense to evaluate three additional alternative technologies – October 2000 Public Law 106-398 mandates Department of Defense to consider incineration and any demonstrated ACWA technologies for disposal of the Colorado stockpile – November 2000 ACWA successfully demonstrates three additional technologies – January 1998 Public Law 105-261 provides funding for ACWA to continue efforts to identify and demonstrate incineration alternatives