Allow me to add some flavor to this subject. O
Post# of 13514
(Total Views: 96)
Posted On: 04/26/2022 4:28:06 PM
Allow me to add some flavor to this subject.
One needs to understand the trigger points in approvals, especially those relating to government and political approvals. It's flawed thinking that so long as these entities are satisfied all is ok.
I believe there were two trigger points underserved in this process.
The opinions of the local Residents
Anytime a new venture seeks approval, especially one that proposes importing medical trash from local states/regions into their city, there must be a value proposition.
A Public Hearing on this subject was I believe a requirement. The local residents were ill prepared to support such a program. In fact, I think thy were scared of it due to lack of knowledge. And I do not see were they had a value proposition. What did the company do to educate the locals and mitigate the concerns outlined below.
Mitigating Concerns
The proposal did not include adequate details about testing protocols, necessary for public review, as part of the permit review process for a medical waste treatment plant. o The proposal's contingency and response plans – what happens in the event of an emergency? – are incomplete. Many of the 400+ members of the public who commented during the application's comment period cited concerns about the proposal's lack of strong environmental monitoring and safety plans. DEM shares these concerns. o Related, DEM found the proposal's lack of clarity about how much and where medical waste would be safely stored to be a critical deficiency in the application. This impacts the proposed operation, monitoring requirements, contingency planning, and closure assurances. o The facility is proposed in a densely populated area close to residential neighborhoods, making the public review of the contingency plans and testing protocols even more relevant. There is no buffer between the proposed facility and other tenants located at that address and little buffer between the facility and surrounding community. o Uncertainty over the impacts of the proposed facility's innovative technology. This proposed system has not previously been used on medical waste.
Remember, if the public wants it, they usually get it. If they don't want it, they usually get their way.
The good news is I think this has been a learning process and they will be better prepared for the next one. Educate the locals, establish advocates, secure support from environmental groups, top scientists, etc - and have them work closely with the locals before any public hearing is held. Answers their questions, mitigate their concerns etc. Give them a value proposition - find out what the financial hot buttons are in the city and become part of the solution.
My opinions.
One needs to understand the trigger points in approvals, especially those relating to government and political approvals. It's flawed thinking that so long as these entities are satisfied all is ok.
I believe there were two trigger points underserved in this process.
The opinions of the local Residents
Anytime a new venture seeks approval, especially one that proposes importing medical trash from local states/regions into their city, there must be a value proposition.
A Public Hearing on this subject was I believe a requirement. The local residents were ill prepared to support such a program. In fact, I think thy were scared of it due to lack of knowledge. And I do not see were they had a value proposition. What did the company do to educate the locals and mitigate the concerns outlined below.
Mitigating Concerns
The proposal did not include adequate details about testing protocols, necessary for public review, as part of the permit review process for a medical waste treatment plant. o The proposal's contingency and response plans – what happens in the event of an emergency? – are incomplete. Many of the 400+ members of the public who commented during the application's comment period cited concerns about the proposal's lack of strong environmental monitoring and safety plans. DEM shares these concerns. o Related, DEM found the proposal's lack of clarity about how much and where medical waste would be safely stored to be a critical deficiency in the application. This impacts the proposed operation, monitoring requirements, contingency planning, and closure assurances. o The facility is proposed in a densely populated area close to residential neighborhoods, making the public review of the contingency plans and testing protocols even more relevant. There is no buffer between the proposed facility and other tenants located at that address and little buffer between the facility and surrounding community. o Uncertainty over the impacts of the proposed facility's innovative technology. This proposed system has not previously been used on medical waste.
Remember, if the public wants it, they usually get it. If they don't want it, they usually get their way.
The good news is I think this has been a learning process and they will be better prepared for the next one. Educate the locals, establish advocates, secure support from environmental groups, top scientists, etc - and have them work closely with the locals before any public hearing is held. Answers their questions, mitigate their concerns etc. Give them a value proposition - find out what the financial hot buttons are in the city and become part of the solution.
My opinions.
(0)
(0)