Problems and Purpose

The Scarlino (GR) plant of Huntsman SrL, later Venator [i], the only producer of titanium dioxide in Italy, must dispose of approximately 410,000 tons of production residue per year consisting of calcium sulphate dihydrate containing iron oxide, hence the common name: red chalk. It is a special non-hazardous waste that can be used as a soil improver or in other ways. However, the commercial outlet fails to absorb the overproduction so Huntsman, in agreement with the Region, local authorities, and various actors, has been experimenting and verifying the use of the material for the environmental restoration of sites such as quarries and landfills since 1998. As the filling of the former Montioni quarry is running out, the Municipality of Gavorrano, in whose territory there are large quarries, has decided to promote a Public Debate pursuant to the Lr. 46/2013, with the support of the regional participation authority and the availability of Huntsman SrL. The subject of the Public Debate consists of an evaluation of the possibility of using plaster for the restoration of mining sites. It is therefore a Public Debate on a choice of location, which does not discuss an optimal hypothesis already identified, but wants to weigh the "pros and cons" of the possible options.[1]

Background History and Context

Gavorrano is a town in the Tuscan Maremma, located on the Metalliferous Hills of Grosseto, a few kilometers from the sea. With just over 2,000 inhabitants, the small village saw a strong increase when a large pyrite deposit was discovered in 1898. It became an important mining centre and its population grew progressively, reaching 12,900 inhabitants in 1951. It currently has 8,596 residents.

The Mines

The mining sector had strong post-war growth but slow technical improvement. The working conditions in the mines were still heavy and dangerous and after the initial "pacification" in industrial relations, the sector went through periods of tension and struggles between trade unions and the company. In the Maremma mining district of Montecatini, in Ribolla, a serious disaster also occurred in 1954 in which 43 miners lost their lives. In the sixties, mechanization and technological innovations improved productivity as well as working conditions and Montecatini concentrated on the extraction of pyrite. Gavorrano and Scarlino became important mining sites to the detriment of others. However, the sector progressively lost manpower, reorganized itself but did not invest in further research to identify new fields, while the existing ones lost performance and competitiveness. The 1973 oil crisis caused production costs to rise enormously, with an inflationary process that affected all European oil-dependent countries. The increase in financial and labour costs generated a progressive structural crisis which added to that already underway in the sector, leading to the definitive closure of the mines in 1981.[2] Since the eighties, the territory begins to become outsourced and is oriented towards tourism and quality agriculture. Today the mines have become a tourist attraction with the Naturalistic Mining Park of Gavorrano. Populated by numerous workers in a red region, the area has historically been a stronghold of the left and the political tradition continued to be center-left leading up to the Public Debate. However, the 2018 policies also marked a great change in the municipalities of the Grosseto province, with a strong shift towards the center-right and the 5-Star Movement.

The red chalk of Huntsman-Tioxide di Scarlino

The company Huntsman P & A Italy Srl, owner of the Huntsman-Tioxide plant in Scarlino, is the only producer of titanium dioxide in Italy. It also produces about 410,000 tons / year of a material (commonly called 'red chalk') consisting of calcium sulphate dihydrate containing iron oxide (hence the red color), classified as a special non-hazardous waste. The same material, with the name Agrigess, is also classified as a type B fertilizer (soil improver) by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Policies and can be used as it is or together with other fertilizing substances.

Doubts About its Use in Agriculture

This material was subject to disputes in 2011 due to the content beyond the legal limits of manganese, sulphates, and hexavalent chromium. Its content was publicly highlighted by some environmentalists, including Roberto Barocci of the Environmental Forum which mobilized Coldiretti and Elisabetta Menchetti and Edoardo Bertocci of the Verdi with press articles. The latter were sued for defamation by the company for the damage that their statements would have caused to the trade of the product, but in 2014 the proceedings were dismissed. [3]

Suspected Radioactivity

Another moment of public attention on Huntsman occurred in 2014 when the Grosseto prosecutor's office opened an investigation into alleged illegal disposal of radioactive waste derived from the processing of titanium dioxide. The ARPAT detect3e excessive concentrations of radioactivity in the filtering cloths of the plant [4]. However, after an in-depth investigation with detectors in the storage area, ARPAT reported that the filters, although they contained radioactivity, have been disposed of in an appropriate manner and in the area of the gypsum, radioactivity is lower than the environmental one [5]. The issue was no longer raised, neither during the DP nor in the preliminary interviews.

From the Montioni Quarry to the Gavorrano Sites

Since 1998, the Scarlino plant started experiments to verify the possibility of using gypsum in restoration and filling operations, compatible with the environment.[1] Thanks to a voluntary agreement signed in 2004 by the Tuscany Region, the Province of Grosseto, the Municipalities of Follonica, Gavorrano, Massa Marittima, Montieri, Scarlino, and Roccastrada, ARPAT, ASL 9, Tioxide Europe, FILCEA-CISL, FLERICA-CISL, UILCEM-UIL , UGL-CHEMICALS, and RSU, the use of red gypsum started for the environmental and morphological restoration of the former quartzite quarry of Poggio Speranzona di Montioni, in the Municipality of Follonica.[1] Given that the restoration of the Montioni quarry is about to run out, in 2015 a new agreement was made (resolution no.524 of 7 April 2015, published in Burt 22.4.2015) with the introduction, among other things, of a commitment to identify other sites for the disposal and/or use of gypsum in environmental recovery activities. At the deadline of 30 September 2015, the Municipality of Gavorrano submit an application to the Regional Authority for the Promotion of Participation (APP) to activate a participatory process with the support of Huntsman. In the following month, on the initiative of the APP, the participatory path was reconfigured into a Public Debate pursuant to Lr. 46/2013. The public announcement was then launched for the appointment of the Manager and the agreement between the parties (Municipality, APP, Huntsman) and finally, on December 19, 2016, the operational and financial plan produced by the Manager, Chiara Pignaris, was approved.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Municipality of Gavorrano. The Municipality submitted an application to the Regional Authority for Participation (APP) to activate a process which was then reconfigured into a Public Debate (PD). The Municipality contributed to the costs for a quantifiable value of 5,000 Euros, making the meeting rooms available and providing the distribution service of information materials at 52 points in the territory of the three municipalities.

Huntsman-Tioxide-Venator di Scalino is the producer of special waste called red chalk. It contributed to the cost of the PD with 49,000 Euros.

Regional Authority for Participation (APP) oversees the public debate procedure (DP) governed by regional law 46/2013. The APP has approved as a regional contribution to the financing of the PD for 38,000 Euros (APP, Del. N.19 of 19/10/2015) [ii].

The manager of the PD was Arch. Chiara Luisa Pignaris, expert in participatory processes and winner of the public selection announced on the BURT of 16/12/2015 for the Public Debate with DD of 07/011/2016 of the Feasibility Analysis and Policy Evaluation Sector. 14,000 Euros were for the activities carried out by the manager.

MHC Progetto Territory Soc. Coop. was selected through direct assignment after evaluation (carried out by the official of the Municipality of Gavorrano together with the manager of the Huntsman tender office) of the curricula of 4 companies identified by the Manager who provide similar services. MHC provided assistance to the organization and public communication of the PD. The total coverage for the activities carried out by it was 49,000 Euros of the budget.

ZimbrAVideo di Vicopisano (PI), selected through a public tender, was in charge of videotaping and video editing of the meetings. A fee of 6,466 euros went to it.

Tipografia Senese (SI) selected through a public tender, printed the information materials for a fee of 2,977 euros.

9 experts identified by the APP were invited to provide their contribution in the PD. They were paid a total remuneration of 6,456 Euros. Andrea Pillon was appointed as an expert by the APP, together with prof. Liliana Cori, only in the final evaluation meeting of the Public Debate, while in the first seminar she participated at her own expense as a consultant to the Ministry. The total cost of the PD was 78,988 Euros.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

The Public Debate involved a total of 365 people, mostly inhabitants of the Municipality of Gavorrano but with a strong presence from Follonica and Roccastrada, many of whom belonged to environmental associations and to local committees or who were employees of Huntsman, members of municipal councils, or representatives of trade unions.

In addition, 15 technicians and experts were identified and invited (9 of them for a fee) by the Participation Authority.

In particular, there was the presence of:

• 88 participants in the introductory seminar,
• 132 participants at the first meeting on plaster casts,
• 39 participants in the visit to the quarries,
• 115 participants at the second meeting on the restoration of Montioni,
• 150 participants at the meeting on the criteria for the choice of the site,
• 405 names in the mailing list, and
• 10,500 website visitors.

Composition of participants. From the signature sheets filled in by the 239 participants in the public meetings, the following categories can be identified: 25 municipal administrators and councillors; 112 citizens and representatives of associations; 16 experts; 57 company employees (55 from Huntsman and 2 from Solmine); 22 representatives of trade unions; 7 people who did not indicate their type of membership.

The meetings of the Public Debate have always been open to all interested parties, both residents of the Municipality of Gavorrano and from other territories. Registration for the meetings was recommended in order to better manage the setting up of the spaces and the organization, but it was not set as an obligation. Interested citizens were invited to contribute to the debate in various ways: 1. by participating in public meetings; 2. writing contributions in the "Notebooks of the actors"; 3. participating in the discussions of the virtual thematic tables; 4. sending questions to promoters via email; 5. meeting the Manager or his collaborators. The most popular modalities were the first and the second, while the virtual thematic tables never took off and the last modality saw only a meeting request.[6]

Monitoring table. The process was followed by a methodological control table on the PD procedure, composed of: the mayors of Follonica, Roccastrada and Scarlino; the representatives of ARPAT, Usl 9 Grosseto, Colline Metallifere National Park; and the managers of the Reclamation, Waste and Energy Authorizations, Planning and Controls on Quarrying, and Policies for the Participation of the Tuscany Region sectors. The Regional Councillor for the Environment and Soil Defense was also invited to the monitoring table.[7]

The 'super partes' experts. The regional Authority has identified, for each thematic meeting, some "super partes" experts of the various subjects to be asked to prepare short contributions to frame the topics in a neutral way. In accordance with the procedures of the Regional Council, the experts were chosen on the basis of the curriculum, drawing mainly from university professors who were available on the scheduled dates for dialogue with citizens. The Head of the PD also submitted to the APP the request to provide for a "counter-expertise" by some experts identified by the representatives of the committees interviewed in the preliminary phase,[8] but this possibility does not appear to be contemplated in the Lr . 46 and in the Regulation on the PD connected to it. In April, before the start of the in-depth meetings, however, an email was sent to all the names of the PD's address book to inform them of the possibility of inviting trusted experts to the discussion, among the planned interventions. Ultimately, this possibility was not taken up and the planned interventions were carried out directly by the spokespersons of some environmental associations.[9] The experts identified were 5 university professors: 2 researchers from the CNR, from Pisa, Florence and Siena in geosciences, geology, hydrogeology and georesources; an associate engineer of the Luigi Boeri e Associati firm of Pisa (consultants of the Judicial Authority on accidents and environmental disasters); and one expert in public debate, Andrea Pillon, former curator of the Public Confrontation for the Bologna motorway link.

Coordination Committee of the Pubic Debate. The agreement signed between the parties before the start of the PD provided for a coordination committee with the obligation to meet at least once a month even with remote connection methods. It was composed of: APP (Proff. Allegretti, Gelli and Scattoni); Tuscany Region (Dr. Luciano Moretti); Municipality of Gavorrano (mayor Elisabetta Iacomelli and Dr. Alessandra Casini); the company Huntsman P & A Italy S.r.l. (CEO Ing. Francesco Pacini); the Head of the PD.[7]

Information material. For the advertising of the PD, 5,000 flyers as well as posters for each public meeting were produced, distributed in 52 points of the territory of the three municipalities. To these are added the roll-ups and panels to set up the information points and the 3,000 copies of the synthetic dossier and 1,000 of the complete one. The distribution plan included several steps: before the start of the debate and before each public event. The distribution in 52 points of the territory of the three municipalities concerned was handled by the Municipality of Gavorrano.

Methods and Tools Used

The Débat Public (Public Debate) was first introduced by law by the French government in 1994. Following the virulent protests of local populations against the route of the Lyon-Marseille high-speed line (TGV), the French government decided that the design of major works should be subjected in advance to a public debate among all interested parties. With the Barnier law of 1994, partially modified in 2002, an independent authority was established called Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP), which has the task of opening the public debate on all preliminary projects of large infrastructures that meet certain requirements. The debate lasts four months and concerns not only the characteristics of the project, but also the opportunity to carry out the work. The public debate is preceded by a broad information campaign, characterized by pluralistic information; all citizens, associations and groups who wish to can participate in it. The next phase involves public meetings, with various names (workshop or laboratories, terms in Italy that generally mean an exchange of arguments between people, some of which have technical-political decision-making roles) and written forms (e.g. Les Cahiers des Acteurs - The Notebooks of the Actors). In this dialogue phase, the contributions are then classified by category. At the end of the public debate, the president of the commission draws up a report in which they illustrate the arguments for and against that emerged over the course of the four months. Within three months of the publication of the report, the proponent of the work must communicate whether they intend to continue the project, modify it, or withdraw it. The procedure of Débat Public suffers from an excessive uncertainty of the results, and instruments for measuring the representativeness of preferences are not usually applied.

The Public Debate was introduced in Italy with the regional law 69/2007 of Tuscany. Once Law 69/2007 lapsed, it was renewed with regional law 46/2013, in which the debate became a mandatory process to be activated in the case of public works exceeding 50 million euros (Regional Law 46/2013, art.8 , co. 1). The method was explicitly inspired by and does not differ much from the French model except for the figures who supervise it. In Italy, a regional rather than a national scale policy remains and instead of the Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP), the Tuscan law establishes the Regional Authority for Participation composed of three members, experts in the field, appointed by the Regional Council, two by the majority and one from the minority. [iii]

Informative dossier. It is the document on which the PD is based and from which it starts, addressing the communication with a wide public. Usually — as in this case — it is a document that contains information on the process and the project presented by the proposer. The parts on the project are drawn up by the latter. The part on the territorial context was handled by the Municipality of Gavorrano and the part on the process by the manager of the PD and the APP. Two versions were produced: a concise 6-page document printed in 3,000 copies and a complete 40-page printed in 1,000 copies.[10] The publication of the Dossier took place after, thanks to the preparatory phase.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The path was divided into 3 phases:

1. preparation: organization of the team and methodologies, development of communication tools, territorial outreach activities, drafting of the dossier of the proposers, and identification of experts (max 3 months);
2. development: conducting the debate through public meetings, online activities, FAQs, and collection of written contributions through the Actors' Notebooks (duration of about 3 months);
3. return of the results: elaboration of the Manager's report (within one month from the end of the DP) and processing of the response by the proposer (within 90 days according to Lr. 46).

1. Preparation (end of January - mid-April 2017)

This phase first involved the activation of communication channels; graphic design; the creation of a website on the Tuscany Region's “Open Toscana” platform, Facebook and Twitter pages, and an email and dedicated telephone number.

Fixed information points. Three fixed information points have been created in the territory of three municipalities. They were located at the Gavorrano park gate (manned by the park staff itself), at the Auser di Scarlino airport (manned by municipal administration staff, which has a decentralized service point there) and another at the gate of the Ribolla park (manned by the staff who manage the social integration activities that take place there every day). Each point was set up with an internet station and posters with the logos and addresses of the project. Within the information points, it was possible to find information materials produced (brochures, posters, summary and complete information dossier) and prints of the reports of the meetings as they took place.[11]

Interviews. 14 interviews were carried out with local actors (technicians of the administrations or of the proposing company) and 9 interviews with the members of the Monitoring Table. From the interviews — 7 with individuals "attributable to the environmental area" — a lot of information was found, including on transparency where interviewees expressed: the desire for the reality not to be hidden "because sooner or later it will come to the surface"; for independent, expert studies to be provided; strong previous distrust in ASL and ARPAT.[12] The experts were provided with five names and role and a reference body. None of the suggested experts will be recruited into the PD.[12]

6/2/2017 Presentation seminar. The PD was officially presented, preceded by press releases, on a Monday morning, from 11:00 to 13:00. Present were the mayor of Gavorrano; head of the PD, C. Pignaris; G. Allegretti of the APP; the managers of Huntsman; Andrea Pillon as consultant of the PD and of the Ministry of Infrastructures who drafted the implementing regulation of article 22 of the "Procurement Code" (Legislative Decree No. 50/2016) which introduces the PD on a national scale. Five questions were asked by the public from environmentalists and committees: e.g. the possibility of attending the monitoring table was answered (by Allegretti) that it is not possible because it is a tool for analyzing and monitoring the procedure and not its content.[13] On the role of experts in the PD, given the long and conflicting history of plasters, Chiara Pignaris informed the public that part of the Region's resources have been allocated for the assignment of third party experts; these may also be suggested by the community. Giovanni Allegretti said that in the public debate on the Florence Airport, third-party experts were interviewed who came from distant experiences compared to the one in question. The role of the experts is also to broaden the issues. He also explained that if there were administrative proceedings concerning the issues of the PD, these should be suspended until the end of the debate.[14] The seminar was closed by the regional councilor L. Marras.

Information meetings. These were meetings aimed at informing people who are not inclined to online communication (elderly) or individuals who tend to do not participate (young people, immigrants). Two meetings were held for the elderly (1/4 at Auser di Scarlino and 29/4 at Auser di Gavorrano Scalo) and one meeting for young people (6/4 at the Gavorrano park gate), organized with the collaboration of a local association. The three meetings were conducted by F. Santini, social psychologist collaborating with MHC and a total of 30 people were present.

In addition, one meeting was organized at the chemical and geotechnical ITT of Massa Marittima (26/4), with the collaboration of the head teacher and some professors, involved classes IV and V of the chemical and geotechnical curriculum. There were two reports, the first by Dr. Capellini of the Huntsman company on the titanium dioxide production cycle and the project to restore the Montioni quarries with red gypsum and the second by A.L. Pecoriello of MHC focused on explaining the PD in its different articulations and modalities of participation. Questions from the audience followed, both from teachers and technicians and from students.[15]

Focus group with trade unions. Another moment of information and of preliminary listening was the focus group with the trade unions (6/4) at the Porta del Parco in Gavorrano. Led by a facilitator of MHC with the presence of the manager of the PD, there were 14 trade union representatives belonging to CGIL, CISL, UIL, CISAL and UGL. On that occasion, the participants expressed themselves, exposing positions and highlighting the elements that should have been brought to attention in the debate.[15] No report is available.

Information dossier. At the end of this phase, two versions of the Information Dossier was published.[10]

2. Development of the Public Debate (from 27/4 to 29/6)

27/4 - First meeting of the PD: "Conosciamo meglio i gessi"

The themes of the meeting, divided into plenaries and discussion tables, concerned: the production process of titanium dioxide, physical-chemical characteristics of the gypsum, what the law says, and considerations on the production cycle. Two technicians from Huntsman, an expert called by the APP (Eng. Paolo Ghezzi from Scuola Superiore S. Anna di Pisa) and R. Barocci from the Environmental Forum Grosseto were heard. The Huntsman technicians, in addition to the illustration of the titanium dioxide cycle, highlighted the success story of the material — excluding any interference on the reference environmental matrices — in its inert characteristics and use in a dozen applications and studies conducted and supervised by professors of the University of Siena.[16] Ghezzi of the S.S.S. Anna di Pisa presented a general framework on the unsustainability of the current model of demographic growth, its inequitable distribution of resources, the enormous production of waste, and the policies of the EU (the principles of prevention, reuse, recycling, energy recovery, and landfill disposal). He spoke about Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to estimate the impact of current or planned management choices, certification, brands, transparency, the circular economy model, and the 17 United Nations objectives for sustainable development, positioning Italy with respect to these indicators, concluding that everyone must do their part.[17]

After the work in the 10 tables, where participants took 45 minutes to discuss and formulate questions to be submitted to the speakers, the manager invited Roberto Barocci (Environmental Forum) for a presentation. Barocci illustrated thematic maps of environmental impact on the Scarlino area, made during a 2011 study commissioned by the Municipality of Scarlino and the Province of Grosseto, led by Prof. Donati, professor of environmental chemistry at the University of Siena and by Dr. Biondi, entitled "Studio dei traccianti della contaminazione delle acque di falda della Piana di Scarlino - Relazione Conclusiva" (translated: Study of the tracers of the contamination of the groundwater of the Piana di Scarlino - Concluding Report"). The data it shows are measurements of the concentration of Arsenic (pyrite ash tracer) and Manganese in the aquifer (red chalk tracer). It noted that Huntsman-Tioxide has been forced to clean up the aquifer for many years and that red gypsum is a special waste that cannot be disposed of in simplified ways but rather by evaluating the specific characteristics of the sites that will have to host them, with environmental chemical analyzes in the territory. It also shows the monitoring of sulphates, reiterating that the measurements must be carried out in the territory and not only in the laboratory on the gypsum leaving the plant. Given the proximity of the Bruna river to the Bertolina quarry, it is believed no type of waste is acceptable and that gypsum should not be allowed to pollute the territory of that area as happened to the plain of Scarlino.[17]

15 questions emerged from the tables. For example, on how red gypsum is disposed of in Northern European countries, the answer is as the company is doing, for environmental restoration and sealing of mining areas or former quarries.[17] To question 7, to the request for reasons why the chromium declared in the analyzes is not specified in its forms, i.e. as chromium 6 (hexavalent), the company replies that they are certain that it is chromium 3 and that they can provide the studies and documents on this aspect and also for chlorides and sulphates. To question n. 10, clarification was sought on the results of the partially publicly funded trials, on the use of plaster for covering landfills and for use in plasterboard to which the company replied that both experiments went well and that for plasterboard commercialization is still under study but possible. For question no. 11, evaluations on the release of heavy metals present in the gypsum were requested, to which the company and ARPAT replied that all the studies and monitoring carried out show that there are no significant alterations in the water body.[18]

13/5 - Guided tour of the quarries

On a Saturday afternoon, a visit by bus was organized departing from the Porta del Parco for the Montioni quarry, where the environmental restoration with Huntsman's red chalk has been underway for 18 years. Explanations were given by the company's technicians and by profs. Salleolini and Tavarnelli of the University of Siena. The visit also continued to the two existing quarries in the Municipality of Gavorrano (Bartolina and Vallina) to finish at the starting point and conclude with an aperitif. The visit was also attended by some representatives of the municipalities of Gavorrano, Scarlino and Follonica.[19]

23/5 - Second meeting of the PD: "Come si ripristina una cava con I gessi" (transl. "How to restore a quarry with the gypsum").

The theme of the meeting was divided into three points: the rules regarding quarries, procedures, and types of restoration; the example of a former quarry restored with plaster, the Poggio Speranzona di Montioni quarry; advantages and limits of restorations with plaster. The experts invited by the APP included: Eng. Daniele Martelloni, president of Studio Boeri in Pisa, expert in waste management and reclamation, and Dr. Brunella Raco, researcher at the Institute of Geosciences and Georesources (IGG) of the CNR of Pisa.[19] In addition, Clementina Piluso of the Associazione SOS Piana del Casone intervened. Martelloni illustrated the legislation on the subject, the authorization procedures, and the special provisions relating to calcium sulphates produced by titanium dioxide production plants. For example, Article 298 bis of Legislative Decree 152/06 states that the competent authority may not apply the Contamination Threshold Concentration values to the analytes present obtained from the neutralization of liquid or gaseous acid streams generated by industrial processes, used in the environmental recovery activity, if it is demonstrated, according to the methods provided for by the aforementioned ministerial decree, the absence of transferability of the aforementioned analytes.[20] The Huntsman technician demonstrated the Montioni landfill recovery project with all the required control and safety provisions. Apart from all the detailed technical aspects, in its presentation, the company SEPIN SrL di Scarlino [21] was identified by Huntsman as the legal entity responsible for managing the decommissioning intervention.

Next, Clementina Piluso discussed a ministerial decree of 5 February 1998 which relieved the company of the obligation to submit calcium sulphates destined for environmental recovery and on the basis of the characteristics of the site (they have recently stopped discharging them into the sea), the limited concentrations of chlorides were also excluded from analysis. The sulphates, to take as an example, which have very high values according to the law, are now more than clearly declared as mutagenic agents of DNA, if in excessive measures or continuous administration. The rule that allows this was made at that time for the only titanium dioxide producer in Italy, the Scarlino plant.[22] Piluso then moved on to 2010 when the Province commissioned the study on soil pollution of the Plain to Donati (see section 2, Barocci intervention). She said the chemists write that the study did not aim to determine the natural background values as required by the Protocol developed by ISPRA and also the application of the protocol presupposed a rigorous selection of the data used with the consequent exclusion of numerous samples which instead, according to chemists, could provide very important information on the characteristics of the aquifers, and contribute to the return of a value that was contextualized with respect to the area under study.[22] Piluso asked why the Province asks only for the extension of the contamination of the aquifers of the Casone area, by arsenic, iron, manganese and sulphates, considered "tracers" without considering sulphates that were not? Piluso noted how in 2014, investigations following a Montioni quarry collapse made ARPAT declare that it will no longer be necessary to verify that the rainwater found in contact with the gypsum, comes into contact with the surface network of natural waters. From the studies and declarations of the company itself, 50 types of water have been studied and found in circulation. If they have been able to study them, it means that in some way, they have either gone up or filtered, there are no other explanations. Furthermore, Piluso showed the differences between the 2004 agreement (which stipulated a surety guarantee with a primary Italian insurance company of 10 million Euros, with a duration of 10 years plus 2) and the 2015 agreement, in which the article concerning the guarantee reappears in the 2017 authorization in a different form with duration and effectiveness equal to the duration of the authorization (2 years plus 2) without however extending its effectiveness to the obligations of the stipulating company deriving from the continuation of the activities following the renewal or extension of the authorization. The guarantee was no longer of a leading Italian bank, but of a broker based in Malta, whose parent company is based in the Bermuda Islands. Furthermore, the authorization was no longer in the name of Huntsman, but of Sepin, a limited liability company with a share capital of 10,000 euros based in Scarlino, which is the parent company that owns another company that deals with the transport of marmettola (the raw material used for the dioxide extraction process and gives red chalk as a residue). In other words, the same owners to bring a CER (special waste) for the titanium dioxide production process, bring a special non-hazardous waste to be stored in the quarry.[23] Piluso concluded:

"[translated from original Italian] I think I have given the idea of how the environmental safeguards, the guarantees towards the entire population, of a multinational with a net worth that went from 48 to 26 million euros in 2015 ... have passed to a company that has 10,000 euros of share capital which has issued a third of guarantees. Should we citizens feel guaranteed?"[23]

Finally, there remains a certain mistrust in the work of the institutions: the last time the ARPAT manager, who has since been transferred, was asked if they had found traces of hexavalent chromium, they answered that no one has ever asked them to look for it. Piluso questioned how citizens can feel guaranteed and protected if politicians and administrators do not even apply the law and candidly declare that they do not know why and what their officials do. [23]

No questions emerged from the first two tables. From the third table, participants asked who should deal with disruptions, fractures or collapses during or post-restoration. Capellini (Huntsman) replied that Sepin is the owner and will answer for everything that happens during the construction and post-control phase.[24] Pignaris asked what a surety clause is and Piluso questioned the difference between a bank guarantee and a financial guarantee. In the new authorization there is no longer a guarantee but a guarantee and no longer the word "of a leading Italian bank". The following answer came from Martelloni (Studio Boeri):

"[transl.] The law speaks of 'financial guarantees', sorry but I can't answer this question, I'm an engineer while these are aspects of an accountant. As for the fact that there is no written 'primary Italian bank', the law now also allows you to take out policies with foreign parties. The policies are stipulated for the entire duration of the authorizations, which have increased up to 10 years over time, and the Italian institutions are quite reluctant to issue high-value policies for such long periods, so there is a tendency to make use of foreign institutions. I tell you this from experience but the law allows it, so I don't know what else to say." [25]

Some interventions underlined the possibility of requesting further analyzes on gypsum, in particular on superficial and deep waters. The response of Eng. Pacini (AD Huntsman) was that the analyzes have been going on for 14-17 years and that there have been no problems found due to iron, manganese, sulphates, etc. The analyzes were carried out by the control bodies and Pacini stated "if there had been any problems, in my opinion, after 14 years someone would have noticed".[26] Table 4 posed three questions on sulphates, hexavalent chromium and any other waste present in Montioni. The first two responses were reassuring while the last was diverted to the Province.[27] Table 5 asked why the tests were not carried out even with water saturated with CO2 or acetic acid as required by a ministerial decree. Dr. Raco of the CNR replied that it would be important to ask for tests of this type, but they are not required by law because the decree provides for deionized water. Regional regulations have been made only for some specific sites that require testing with that type of water, but not in this case. A controversial question arose that expressed concern with respect to the pollutants that would not be talked about enough and C. Pignaris' firm response was:

"[transl.] the goal of the Public Debate is precisely to understand what your concerns are and seek to give an answer. The technicians try to answer but cannot say that things are dangerous that are not. There are also experts who come from outside, not just the Huntsman technicians; if you don't trust it, suggest us others. If one does not trust science and experts will remain in his position, we do not want to agree or convince you by promoting one type of restoration rather than another. The purpose of the debate is only to broaden the information; some will come out more reassured, others more worried. At the end we will evaluate with you if the path has served any purpose." [27]

Table 6 asked whether, given the excellent levels of management and control of the restoration of the Montioni quarry, it is possible to do even better. Capellini (AD Huntsman) argued that it has been done very well and that it can be done even better, but something new has to be invented. [28] Table 7 again asked about the controls and the responses of Capellini and Palmieri (ARPAT) were reassuring again [29]

14/6 - Third meeting of the PD "Quali criteri per orientare la scelta del sito" (What criteria should guide the choice of the site?)

Two interventions were planned by M. Bellettini (coordinator of the “Comitato Insieme per Roccastrada" (transl. Together for Roccastrada Committee)) and Laura Conte representing the ADIC, ADAS associations and the environmental committees of the province of Grosseto. The other intervenors were Chiara Pignaris (PD manager), the architect Padellini of the Municipality of Gavorrano, the mayor of Roccastrada and the mayor of Gavorrano. Bellettini explained the reasons, centered on the lack of confidence that gypsum are harmless substances for the environment, to exclude the former Bartolina quarry. Laura Conte, focused on the lack of confidence that gypsum are harmless substances and that management always takes place without accidents, in addition to having to renounce the landscape restoration already planned with excavated materials, expressed the opposition of the associations she represented on the restoration of the two quarries, Vallina and Bartolina, using the red chalk.[30] Pignaris then introduced architect Massimo Padellini of the technical services of the municipality of Gavorrano, who proceeded to illustrate the urban framework of the two locations, the state of the concessions, and the restoration projects attached to the authorizations for the cultivation of the Vallina and Bartolina quarries. Francesco Limatola, mayor of Roccastrada, expressed a position of great attention to the developments of the Public Debate on a complex situation, from the environmental and socio-economic points of view, and important for a very large territory, and the Mayor of Gavorrano Elisabetta Iacomelli, underlined the willingness of the municipality to broaden the discussion and make the decision-making process regarding the use of red chalk for environmental restoration as transparent and shared as possible.[31]

Discussion at the facilitated tables followed the presentations, on all the following themes: environment, mobility, socio-economic aspects, landscape and future uses, general considerations, and pros/cons for the Vallina and Bartolina quarry sites. A group of technicians supported the discussion at the tables: Selleolini and Tavernelli (geologists) of the University of Siena; Pratelli (engineer) of the University of Pisa; and Melis (landscape architect) from the University of Florence. Each table was equipped with maps and aerial photos at different scales and technical sheets with various data.[31] At table 1 (made up of municipal councillors, members of environmental associations, and lay citizens), they discussed various issues with the technicians, concluding that the Vallina quarry, subject to the conditions indicated by prof. Salleolini, after stratification with draining material, is the most suitable site for the lowering of gypsum, because it is closer to the plant, less involved by the proximity of waterways, and less valuable from a landscape point of view than the Bartolina quarry.[32]

Table no. 2 (municipal councillors, environmentalists, citizens) started the discussion with prof. Melis (landscape architect) from the question of how the restorations can improve the landscape. Participants initially showed their opposition to discussing viable options as they had no intention of endorsing this choice. Furthermore, according to some of them, the quarries are part of the historical mining identity of the territory so they do not see them at all as disturbing elements.[33] It was recalled that these are relatively recent activities and that the restoration of mining sites is required by law. It was replied (it is not clear by whom, probably by Melis) that the quarries date back to a relatively recent period and the discussion did not want to tackle a specific project but wanted to open a reflection on potential appropriate uses, subsequent to the restoration actions, which could be attractive for the local community.[33] Ultimately at table 2, the participants did not agree on one of the solutions but the majority believed that the Bartolina quarry is not suitable. They were more in favour of Vallina but did not have sufficient knowledge of the hydrogeological context to be certain. They stated that if Bartolina were to be chosen, a Public Inquiry should be opened (an institutionalized participatory method provided for by the statutes of many Italian local authorities). For the landscape arrangements, the table showed preference for the creation of the Bartolina lake; for the Vallina, two options were advanced: mountain bike tracks or the construction of parking lots to connect it with cableways to the Teatro delle Rocce, an existing tourist attraction from a former mining quarry.[34]

At table 3 (trade unionists and Huntsman employees, Together for Roccastrada committee, local inhabitants), there was no assigned expert and the facilitator guided the discussion starting from the socio-economic aspects. A debate began between those who consider the agricultural sector more sustainable in the long term and those who (the Huntsman workers) instead emphasize how work in industry is less burdened by accidents and diseases at work than agriculture and how it guarantees more stable (less cyclical) employment.[35] The chemical center employs 800 people, so one wonders what would happen to them and their families, without counting all the related activities of small businesses and services, in particular training institutes. The Bartolina quarry was considered less suitable at this table as well.[36]

Table no. 4 (Huntsman workers, inhabitants of the Vallina area, and environmental associations) had prof. Pratelli (transport engineer) and the theme of mobility as a starting point. They started from the consideration that transport for Vallina is exclusively by road while for Bartolina a disused railway line could be used. The railway is considered to be in good condition, on which a freight train equal to 30 trucks could be placed per day, however with a higher cost and longer quarry handling times. Participants were also informed that transport by truck to Montioni presented problems because the plaster would stick to the trucks which then potentially disperse it on the street, creating a hazard, if they are not properly washed before leaving storage sites. Proposals emerged regarding this aspect (e.g. by creating automatic truck washing systems) and a road by-pass to avoid crossing the buildings of the hamlet of Filare, along the path towards Vallina, a site that in this case is considered more “precious”.[37]

At table 8 (Huntsman employees, Bartolina area inhabitants, two agritourism operators), the discussion started on the environmental theme with the presence of prof. Tavernelli (geologist) of the University of Siena. Tavernelli immediately expressed, at the request of a farm owner, an opinion on the compatibility of the Bartolina quarry provided that in-depth geological studies and works to mitigate the hydraulic risk and lower the alluvial aquifer are carried out.[38] According to the Huntsman employees, Bartolina also has the advantage of a greater capacity and therefore longer use. On the chemical environment, these workers proposed more in-depth geochemical studies on the aqueous behavior of gypsum with sequential tests with different types of water, as proposed by Dr. Raco in the previous meeting. The inhabitants, on the other hand, expressed with great intensity their opposition to "not putting anything either at Vallina or Bartolina".[38] On the socio-economic aspects, some farm owners expressed great concern about the loss of value of the properties in the area, which they claimed has already occurred from raising the possibility alone. On the landscape, the owner of a farm proposed an alternative hypothesis of reuse of the Bartolina quarry, underlining its geological peculiarity which is already of interest today for groups of enthusiasts and schoolchildren, asking for a study for the construction of a geological park that can be visited.[39] On a similar position, another owner suggested calling a referendum on the restoration with red chalk aimed at the citizens of Gavorrano and Roccastrada. The Huntsman workers complained about the uncooperative attitude of some committees because they consciously carry out actions of disinformation and "psychological terrorism", disseminating information not supported by objective scientific sources, compromising the possibilities of a serious debate.[39]

29/6 Evaluation meeting.

The topics of the Public Debate can be considered closed, but in this meeting, the instrument was evaluated in a 'participatory' way. Several interventions were planned; for example, one by Prof. Gelli of the APP illustrated the results of the evaluation surveys distributed during the process. Citizens were then evaluated in the presence of Pillon, consultant of the Ministry (MIT), Prof. Cori, anthropologist of the CNR of Pisa, the members of the APP (Allegretti and Gelli), and Councillor for participation of the Tuscany Region, Vittorio Bugli.

The survey illustrated by Gelli was based on 59 questionnaires completed by 37.3% of those present at the meeting on 14/6. In addition to the demographic data, the survey showed that the majority declared that their knowledge about plasters and their use have increased (59% reported 'quite' or 'a lot') even without having developed new ideas, doubts, opinions, and concerns (62%). In the 37% who answered, an opinion emerged of "growing polarization of positions, persistence of disinformation and naive environmentalism".[40] Overall, 82% were satisfied with having participated and add some suggestions for the APP: e.g. less rigid organization, environments that facilitate discussion, greater consideration of technical data, greater resources for the PD, have the PD follow a referendum.[40]

An important question arose about the invited experts. According to a participant (No. 3), the statistics on PD are distorted by the presence of Huntsman workers. Complaints were made that the experts indicated by the committees were not invited, but only those indicated by the APP, suggesting that the Region is acting in the interests of the company, not the citizens. Pignaris replied that when "it was decided" that the APP would appoint experts from outside this territory, she sent an email asking who would like to present scheduled interventions, but received no requests from experts appointed by committees. [41] The same participant (n. 3) responded that "in the recorded interview I was asked (as well as 15 other actors) to indicate 2 experts, then no one was invited. To ourselves, you gave us 5 minutes each in 4 scheduled interventions, while the company's experts talked a lot more."[41] In response, Dr. Pecoriello (Coop. MHC, of the organizational staff) noted that the list of experts was passed to the APP and the Region, which they examined before choosing otherwise.[41] Bugli (regional councillor) asked for an explanation on the matter of the experts and participant no. 3 reiterated the question on who chose the invited experts, since “the company's experts have explained everything well but there are other studies and people who say the opposite".[41] Allegretti (APP) replied that they had to balance the availability of time by the experts and the compatibility of compensation by the region with its consequent bureaucratic constraints; however, he also expressed appreciation for the comment, noting that it will be relevant for 'next time'.[41] Bugli expressed concern that requiring experts who are accepted by citizens would be very complicated, and perhaps illegitimate, saying "If experts are truly experts, they are for everyone, regardless of everyone's position. Having said this, we need to find a way to finance with public resources (not private ones!) even experts who are appreciated by citizens and committees. This is why we very often use experts from the university world, but perhaps we should also find other methods and channels". [42]

Pillon asked what else participants felt went wrong. Complaints were added about the setting of unbalanced tables, the lack of debate, and the lack of consideration for the studies and analyzes presented "by us" (participant no. 5). To conclude, Prof. Gelli exposed this argument: "This DP with its territorial breadth shows that there is no correspondence between the common promoter and the territory concerned, who should vote in a hypothetical 'referendum'?" configuring "an important problem also vis-à-vis the region, which should identify a representation of citizens interested and involved in the broad and complex issues dealt with by the DP".[43] The commissioner concluded by saying, "on the role of the experts we will take into account what emerged in this DP. I also understand the skepticism and sometimes the lack of trust, but it must be taken into account that if we start a DP, this is already a great demonstration of trust." [44]

Anthropological investigation.

Dr. Gabriella Pizzetti is a member of the organizational staff and collaborates with the coop. MHC Territory. She was commissioned for an anthropological survey on the formation of opinions, interviewing a dozen participants with the 'life stories' approach. The report details reflections on the real perception of the PD by the participants, such as the woman from '46 who expresses herself as follows:

"I was rather disappointed. In the end I realized that they made an effort to make certain things clear but perhaps this was more useful to the organizers. So I tell myself, maybe you organized the DP for yourself, you didn't organize it for me ... I have to understand. They have fixed their attention on what they want to say. [...] I think it is right instead to really receive all the tools available that can give me a precise idea of the pros and cons, of choices, which sectors are growing or wasting away by making certain choices ... what development do you want ... agricultural tourism ... which industries are compatible ... [45]

A trade unionist of '51 on the opposite side gave a severe judgment of those who expressed doubts. In his opinion, it was a manifestation "of a wanting to be there, a protagonism, a wanting to participate, to be in the limelight. The experience of the past, the presence of the territory is missing. Today the protagonists are those of the no above all. Furthermore, these meetings had to be held in all the municipalities, in all the localities of the territory in Ribolla al Grilli in Ravi in Caldana."[46] According to him, people in favour are silent because they are afraid of being criticized by others because everyone else in his opinion is in favour of "no". [46]

Workbooks of the actors. As is customary in the PDs, 13 notebooks were collected with the positions of the respective individual or associated actors.

3. Outcome of the Public Debate and response from the proponents (Municipality of Gavorrano and Huntsman-Venator).

The manager of the PD explained in detail the development of the path and the topics that emerged (most of them have been highlighted above), fixing at the end of this review, on each topic, the requests addressed to the proponents.

On the environmental aspect, the proponents were asked to comment on any initiatives that, although not necessary by law, could help to reassure inhabitants and economic actors of the territory, such as:

• expanding the studies of the behaviour of gypsum in the environment with more complete and diversified methods of analysis carried out by independent laboratories;
• deepening the medium/long-term behaviour of gypsum with "sequential extractions" that simulate different release environments (e.g. water of different origin and composition, acetic acid, etc.); and
• implementing monitoring systems which act with regular frequency even after the restoration operations and which are accessible to citizens. [47]

On the socio-economic repercussions, proponents were asked to express their opinions on the possible positive economic effects that a restoration with plaster would entail for the Municipality of Gavorrano and for any other Municipalities involved in the future agreement, as well as specifying whether following any restoration, local advantages are conceivable in the two sites in question. [48]

The mobility topic focused on proponents' willingness to study modes of transport or alternative viability solutions that reduce impacts, and to describe the measures that they would undertake to introduce in order to limit the inconvenience and risks associated with the transport of the gypsum, both for the two specific sites of Vallina and Bartolina (should it be decided to proceed in one of the two quarries) and in general (should it be decided to transfer the plaster to another site). It was also requested that they describe the methods and territorial scope with which they intend to evaluate the impacts on the mobility of any transport by truck, deciding on the possibility of forms of participatory monitoring of any inconvenience. [49]

On the landscape, it was asked what strategies and design methods they would undertake in the event of a restoration with plaster of the two quarries, in order to ensure solutions that can raise the landscape quality of the area and enrich its functions, in synergy with the identity and vocations of the territories. In particular, specification was requested on whether these strategies consider the restored quarries as a node of a wider network of resources and distances. [50]

Proponents were asked how they intend to proceed in detail on the two quarries and on the zero option respectively.[51] Finally, a meeting on ways to disclose environmental data relating to red gypsum, its reuse and current legislation in a more accessible way, even to non-experts, was suggested to the APP and to the regional guarantor for communication and participation.[52] Such a meeting would aim to resolve doubts of interpretation, better clarify the role of control agencies, and identify further forms of communicative and participatory support for the decision-making processes that will need to be undertaken. [52]

This passage was highlighted in the reply of the Municipality of Gavorrano which stated that the contributions from the public debate made them more aware, and highlighted the critical elements of both sites; the major concern that emerged is the possible contamination of the aquifers present [53] The choice to promote the PD in a preliminary phase in which projects were not to be evaluated, but acquiring awareness of the theme and intercepting the concerns of the communities a priori, they believe was an essential step, and the collected contributions suggest the need to continue on the path of participation. They noted that the notions they have acquired from the comparison with the experts will constitute material and skills for the evaluation of a specific project that must be developed by the proposing company.[54]

The Huntsman company (later Venator) declared that it intended to “deepen the proposal to restore the quarries with plaster, collecting part of the suggestions that emerged during" the debate.[55] On the request to carry out further analyzes, the company agreed in general but specifies that the scientific community and the national legislation have, to date, for environmental restoration interventions, reported the assessment of the transferability of metals to the eluate aqueous, as it is considered the most representative form of the real environmental situation, surpassing the previous methods with acetic acid; on the monitoring, they refer to the bodies in charge on the form and manner approved by the authorization.[56] On the zero option, they stated "[transl.] it remains fundamental to ensure a location for the gypsum in environmental restoration activities, to guarantee, to date, a production continuity for the site, currently being the most consolidated application of recovery of the gypsum produced."[57]

Petition (of 400 signatures) promoted by the committees. The manager received on 20 June the petition document promoted on 20 April by the Environmental Forum, by the Val di Farma committee, with 400 signatures [58] which expressed opposition and strong uncertainty regarding the harmlessness of gypsum.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The public debate provided a picture that, especially in the public part, served to increase knowledge and awareness of the issue. On the central question relating to the harmlessness of red chalk, the Municipality of Gavorrano's mayor's awareness expressed prudence and was characterized by uncertainty. However, it was not a question of reaching a decision on a project but of evaluating hypotheses that perhaps will soon be re-discussed. The result of the PD as a process once again convinced the Municipality in having had a fundamental role in this acquisition of awareness because the mayor declared that she intended to continue to submit any more defined projects to public participation (see above, Response from the proponents). The Municipality did not seem to comment on the financial guarantees offered by Sepin and on the criticisms raised by the committees.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Advance on the decision. Although the public debate suffers from a strong uncertainty of outcomes, in this case, it should be noted that it has led the local authority to a certain awareness of cognitive uncertainty and the need to further investigate the issue through similar participatory processes. The advance on the decision may have cooled the climate of reflection and discussion, which seemed to be much more conflicting, and allowed this option.

Unresolved cognitive node. Although the politicization of the technical question is predictable and natural in these contexts, and has shown itself several times, it has not reached such levels as to supplant the centrality of whether or not red gypsum is a material that releases dangerous pollutants. The Municipality has faced the PD precisely in an attempt to combine the new direction of development oriented towards agriculture and quality tourism with industrial activity—recognized as reliable and well reputed sometimes even by more opposing parties—which is an important economic reality, linked to the history of the territory, but did not share the degree of certainty expressed by the technicians who took part. The problem polarizes those who see the 'red chalk' as a harmless, stable and manageable inert material (company and experts invited by the APP) and those who see it as fraught with uncertainty and risk (committees and environmentalists). On this aspect, the central issue concerns the theses and citations (e.g. Dr. Donati's study) mentioned by the skeptical pole which were neither denied nor commented on by the most convinced pole.

Sharing the path. Arguably one could/should have tried to solve the aforementioned issue simply by trying to get those voices of accredited experts requested by the committees — "those experts welcome by the citizens" (cit. Bugli) — known from the first interviews. Furthermore, the person in charge of the process had explicitly undertaken to fulfill those requests at least in part.[12] Another way that could have made a contribution was by recalling the author of the most cited critical study (Dr. A. Donati) or by retracing this study with other technicians. In addition to addressing the scientific diatribe, it would have reduced the distrust of the committees and facilitated their sharing of the path.

Impartiality. The admission of Allegretti and Councillor Bugli, of having failed to make that request, despite attempts at justification, is clear-cut. The scientific literature on experts and counter-experts in scientific conflicts, especially in the environmental field, has been known for some time (Fisher, 2000; Latour, 2007; Pellizzoni, 2011) so while experts may be for everyone, they are not independent of their position and, since it was already possible to do so, the APP had to recruit a number of accredited experts equal to those chosen by the Region. It is not clarified by any reference where Law 46/2013 does not provide for the possibility of inviting experts "pleasing to citizens", among other things it has already been done in other processes. This shortcoming has exposed the methodology to banal criticism and has corroded the quality of the process on the principle of impartiality. Proceeding according to what was declared would have put two scientific theses into close comparison. As in all PDs, a participatory hierarchy of agenda priorities is not defined — the path is rigid as some participants pointed out — so experts tended to teach rather than offer learning opportunities. In addition, there was talk of experts outside the territory, but when the company and local authorities, such as the Region, had previously contacted the universities involved in the PD, they were the closest universities geographically (Pisa and Siena in particular).

Transparency. The transparency of the process is largely complete, but the information relating to the activities of the Coordination and Monitoring Committee and their minutes are missing. It would have been useful to know e.g. what issues were addressed within them and if the question of the experts requested by the committees had been touched and how the discussion between its members had taken place. Furthermore, no comments were found on the criticisms relating to the reliability of the SEPIN corporate entity and the guarantees provided by foreign financial companies.

Inclusiveness and representativeness. Apart from SEPIN — as a potential manager of future potential restores — no one seems to have been ruled out. In addition to the PD process, the initial interviews, survey questionnaires, the anthropological inquiry, the notebooks of the actors, the petition, and the participatory evaluation meeting seem to have been open to all the local stakeholders, to different experts and to different politicians. Furthermore, consistent representativeness was achieved through various channels (see Participant Recruitment and Selection).

PD scale and referendum. Dr. Francesca Gelli of the APP asked "who should vote in a hypothetical 'referendum' given that this DP with its territorial breadth demonstrates that there is no correspondence between the municipality promoter and the territory concerned?" It should be considered again that the PD is not a decision-making tool, and, indeed, in this circumstance it was very delimited because its territory, as the law intends, should be regional, while its scale was little more than municipal. This does not mean that the territories and their authorities lose power thanks to the PD but from it they should derive legitimacy for their decisions that compete and remain with them, although there may be interventions by inhabitants of neighbouring municipalities or personalities who habitually reside at distances notable from the context. A hypothetical referendum is linked to the authority or authorities that are the formal holders of a particular decision. In the principles of the Italian Constitution, sovereignty belongs to citizens. So if the Municipality of Gavorrano gives the authorization for the Vallina quarry and calls for a referendum, the citizens of Gavorrano will determine the decision. Certainly, this can make sense and happen, if the use of plaster is authorized, and as in this case, the central State with its Ministry and the Region come into play with the technical opinions of ARPAT and the special waste service of the Region, among others. A possible PD, as in this case, will be able to influence the choices of the Region such as the orientations of the citizens of Gavorrano in the campaigns they want to conduct or not before the referendum and in the choice on the card. Widening the scale of the debate does not mean that higher-level authorities must be right with respect to lower-level ones, according to the logic that a general interest is greater than the particular; thus one demands the sacrifice of someone for the advantage of someone else, just because the scale of his powers and interests is wider. It is necessary to reflect on this aspect which according to the principles of democratic parity and equality should be traced back to a reticular and non-hierarchical logic between territories and therefore to the principle that every new intervention must obtain approval from all territories of a more particular scale (the municipalities) involved in the most evident physical territorial transformations. While today, in many cases considered to be of national interest (see in particular TAP Puglia), local sovereignty is not always valid.

See Also

The TAP Gas Pipeline Project in Puglia 

References

[1] DP, Comunità in Dibattito. Open Toscana. Retrieved 5/20/2021, from https://open.toscana.it/web/dibattito-pubblico-sull-utilizzo-dei-gessi-a-gavorrano (rel., 3/3/18).

[2] Santini, S. (1996), Una sintesi storica dell’industria mineraria italiana, SNR 160, Roma (transl. A historical summary of the Italian mining industry). http://www.pionierieni.it/wp/wp-content/uploads/SNR-160-Storia-industria-mineraria-italiana-parte-prima.-S.-Santini-1996.pdf (rel. 2/3 / 18). pp. 60:75.

[3] Reali, D., (2014, Sept 15). Agrigess come fertilizzante, dubbi legittimi degli ambientalisti. «Non ci fu diffamazione», Il Giunco.net, the Maremma newspaper, https://www.ilgiunco.net...

[4] Ferri, F., (2014, Oct 14). Malattie da radiazioni? Angoscia in Tioxide, Il Tirreno (Grosseto edition), https://iltirreno.gelocal.it/grosseto/cronaca...

[5] ARPAT, (2014, Nov 28). Gli esiti del controllo sulla radioattività alla discarica di pié di fabbrica, http://www.arpat.toscana.it/notizie/comunicati-stampa/2014/i-risultati-dei-controlli-sui-gessi-rossi-della-tioxide

[6] Pignaris, C. (2017), Dp Comunità in Dibattito, Dibattito pubblico ai fini della Lr. 46/2013 sull’uso dei gessi per il ripristino dei siti di attività estrattive nel Comune di Gavorrano (GR) - Final Report, 29/7; http://www.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/upload/AUTORIT%C3%80%20PARTECIPAZIONE/documenti/OK_Rapporto%20finale%20ridotto.pdf (rel. 3/3/18), p. 31.

[7] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 29.

[8] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 27.

[9] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 28.

[10] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 37.

[11] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 35.

[12] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 47.

[13] Riassunto seminario introduttivo (Summary of the introductory seminar), 6/2/17; http://open.toscana.it/documents...(rel. 4/3/18), p. 4

[14] Riassunto seminario introduttivo, p. 5

[15] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 36.

[16] Primo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico (First meeting of the Public Debate), 27/4/17; http://open.toscana.it/documents/373124... (rel. 4/3 / 18), p. 4-5.

[17] Primo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 6.

[18] Primo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 11.

[19] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 39.

[20] Martelloni, D. (2017), Il recupero dei gessi nei ripristini ambientali normativi, 23/5, http://open.toscana.it/documents/373124/446240/Presiliazione+Daniele+Martelloni... (rel. 4/3/18), p. 9.

[21] Ulivieri, P. (2017), Progetto di Recupero Ambientale e Morfologico della Ex cava di quarzite ubicata in località Poggio Speranzona di Montioni 23/5, http://open.toscana.it/documents/373124/446240/Presiliazione+Piero+Ulivieri... (rel. 4/3/18). p.10

[22] Piluso, C., (2017) Invervento at the second meeting of the DP, Gavorrano, 23/5; http://open.toscana.it/documents/373124/446240/Intervento+di+Clementina+Piluso... (rel. 4/3/18). p. 1-2

[23] Piluso, C., (2017), p. 3.

[24] Secondo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, 23/5/17, http://open.toscana.it/documents/373124/446240/Riassunto+secondo... (rel. 5/3 / 18), p. 6.

[25] Secondo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 7-8.

[26] Secondo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 10.

[27] Secondo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 11.

[28] Secondo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 12.

[29] Secondo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 13-14.

[30] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, 14/6/17; http://open.toscana.it/documents/373124/457207/Riassunto+terzo+incontro...(rel. 6/3/18). p. 1

[31] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 2.

[32] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 3.

[33] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 4.

[34] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 5.

[35] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 6.

[36] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 7.

[37] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 8.

[38] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 9.

[39] Terzo incontro del Dibattito Pubblico, p. 10.

[40] Incontro di valutazione partecipata del DP (Participatory evaluation meeting), 29/6/17, http://open.toscana.it/documents/373124/462588/Riassunto+dell%27incontro+di+valutation+29+giugno... (rel. 7/3/18). p. 5.

[41] Incontro di valutazione partecipata del DP, p. 7.

[42] Incontro di valutazione partecipata del DP, p. 8.

[43] Incontro di valutazione partecipata del DP, p. 9.

[44] Incontro di valutazione partecipata del DP, p. 10.

[45] Pizzetti, G. (2017), All'origine della vitalità individuale, 25/7 in: Pignaris, Allegati al rapporto finale della DP, http://open.toscana.it/documents/373124/0/Allegati+al+Rapporto+finale... (rel., 6/3/18), p. 6-7.

[46] Pizzetti, G. (2017), p. 8.

[47] Pignaris, C. (2017), DP Comunità in Dibattito, Dibattito pubblico ai fini della Lr. 46/2013 sull’uso dei gessi per il ripristino dei siti di attività estrattive nel Comune di Gavorrano (GR) - Final Report, 29/7; http://www.consiglio.regione.toscana.it/upload/AUTORIT%C3%80%20PARTECIPAZIONE/documenti/OK_Rapporto%20finale%20ridotto.pdf (rel. 3/3/18), p. 11.

[48] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 12.

[49] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 14.

[50] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 15.

[51] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 18-21.

[52] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 23.

[53] BURT, n. 5, 31/1/18, p. 148

[54] BURT, n. 5, 31/1/18, p. 149.

[55] BURT, n. 5, 31/1/18, p. 150.

[56] BURT, n. 5, 31/1/18, p. 152.

[57] BURT, n. 5, 31/1/18, p. 158.

[58] Pignaris, C. (2017), p. 9, note 16.

External Links

Dibattito pubblico ai fini della Lr. 46/2013 sull’uso dei gessi per il ripristino dei siti di attività estrattive nel Comune di Gavorrano (GR) - Final Report

Notes

[i] The company Huntsman SrL, formerly Tioxide, during the public debate process changed its name to Venator. The first has been kept in the text for ease of understanding.

[ii] From the final report of the public debate, it emerges that the regional contribution was 29,988 Euros[6]; this difference is likely due to some unexplained tax.

[iii] see Participedia, The Tuscany Regional Participation Policy, Italy