Basing strategy involves local community dialogue now—the plan reverses this and causes backlash that undermines effectiveness
Boccuti, Faul and Gray, 12
Amanda Boccuti, GIS Support Analyst, Marstel-Day, LLC, providing analysis and GIS support for U.S. Marine Corps projects. Lauren Faul, Specializing in Strategic Communications Analyst, Marstel-Day, LLC, Her primary responsibilities entail the development of engagement plans for the U.S. Marine Corps which will provide them a framework to sustain the missions through community outreach and engagement. She has previously worked as a Communications Director on Capitol Hill and Congressional Liaison for the Marine Corps. Lauren Gray, Environmental Issues Researcher, Marstel-Day, LLC, offering research and analysis of environmental issues for encroachment control plans and communications, outreach and engagement strategies for the U.S. Marine Corps. Her primary focus areas include climate change effects and energy development, 5/21/12, http://engagingcities.com/article/establishing-creative-strategies-effective-engagement-between-military-installations-communi
Throughout the Nation’s history, military installations and ranges were historically established in undeveloped areas, except for those forts located to defend cities. Local communities developed near the installations for safety and economic reasons resulting in the installation being the up-to-that-point rural community’s primary economic engine. Routine communication between the installations and local communities were minimal because the installation was self-supporting and not subject to local laws and regulations. Communications were primarily social. Starting in the post-World War II era and accelerating as the 20th Century came to a close, installation-adjacent communities increased in both density and size – becoming less rural, more suburban or urban, and more economically diverse.¶ ¶ Military missions continue to evolve, incorporating new weapon platforms and training over larger areas and at all hours of the day and night. These changes in both surrounding communities and the installation missions have often lead to competing interests with respect to the economy, natural resource management, and land use. Military installations and local communities must, therefore, focus communication efforts on building partnerships to find mutually acceptable paths forward for resolving their competing interests. Developing collaborative relationships is imperative to turning otherwise conflicting interests into opportunities for mutually beneficial solutions. The nature of those interactions is defined by issue type, installation and community rapport, and available communication channels.¶ ¶ The four military services (i.e., Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force) have service-specific community engagement programs to develop partnerships; all four, however, conduct information sharing through the Public Affairs Office (PAO), which handles media and public relations. Three of the services – the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force – have established encroachment management policies that outline service responsibilities to establish, maintain, and sustain community relationships in order to reduce encroachment effects. This responsibility is usually assigned to a Community Plans and Liaison Office (CPLO) or an equivalent community planner. The CPLO and PAO work with their installation Commander to act as the military’s voice and point of engagement in the community through consistent messaging, establishing an installation presence in community forums, and planning community-engagement events and processes.¶ ¶ Though Department of Defense (DoD) mechanisms exist to develop community partnerships, mediating the different interests and priorities among military installations and their surrounding communities is a complex, nuanced process usually exercised by the services, through their installation leadership. Siting of renewable energy projects, environmental stewardship responsibilities, noise from training events, and other policy- and planning-related matters invoke difficult questions, such as: how can an installation and its surrounding communities concurrently pursue goals and development in a way that lead to mutual gain, obtaining threshold requirements and fair compromise? Finding interest nexuses and fostering an open, strong relationship in which those nexuses can be explored is key.
Locating SMRs on bases destroys solvency--either reactors could only be on non-essential bases, or locating reactors on mission-critical facilities jacks effectiveness
Marcus King et al 11, Associate Director of Research, Associate Research Professor of International Affairs, Elliot School of International Affairs, The George Washington University, et al., March 2011, “Feasibility of Nuclear Power on U.S. Military Installations,” http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/Nuclear%20Power%20on%20Military%20Installations%20D0023932%20A5.pdf
The effect of nuclear power plants on operations, training, and ¶ readiness
The key factor that DoD must consider in the siting of nuclear reactors is the potential impact on training and readiness. All reactors regulated by the NRC have designated exclusion areas. The exclusion¶ area is the area surrounding the reactor, in which the reactor licensee¶ has the authority to determine all activities, including exclusion or¶ removal of personnel and property from the area. The existence of¶ an exclusion area would not necessarily prohibit military training.¶ According to the NRC definition,¶ This area may be traversed by a highway, railroad, or waterway, provided these are not so close to the facility as to interfere with normal operations of the facility and provided¶ appropriate and effective arrangements are made to control¶ traffic on the highway, railroad, or waterway, in case of¶ emergency, to protect the public health and safety .
Furthermore,¶ Activities unrelated to operation of the reactor may be permitted in an exclusion area under appropriate limitations,¶ provided that no significant hazards to the public health¶ and safety will result .
Another factor to consider is that the exclusion area for SMRs are¶ likely to be smaller than those established for large reactors. ¶ DoD must also consider the potential effect of military training on¶ reactor operations. Reactors must be designed to the criteria that no¶ accidents at nearby military facilities may threaten nuclear plant¶ safety . NRC regulations note that accidents at nearby military¶ facilities such as munitions storage areas and ordinance test ranges¶ may threaten safety. Flight training is another area of concern. The¶ NRC stipulates that nuclear plant developers should identify airports¶ within 16 km, and the risks of potential incidents must be taken into¶ consideration . Hybrid concepts that include industrial facilities¶ associated with nuclear reactors raise additional safety concerns.¶ Another factor is whether a nuclear accident would affect critical¶ DoD missions. It is important that DoD consider only those sites that¶ support missions that are not so critical to national security so that if¶ an interruption caused by a nuclear incident, or an evacuation order,¶ would create lasting damage to national security.
Counterplan: the Strategic Environmental R&D Program and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program should support research and development for small modular reactors.
Share with your friends: