Canadian Innovations in Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities

/ Siting hazardous waste facilities is an extremely complex and difficult endeavor. Public aversion to the construction of these facilities in or near their community often results in concerted opposition, referred to as the NIMBY syndrome. For the most part, siting processes do not fail because of inadequate environmental or technical considerations, but because of the adversarial decision-making strategies employed by the proponents. Innovative siting processes used in the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba offer tangible evidence of the successful application of an innovative siting approach based on the principles of decentralization of decision-making authority and full and meaningful public involvement. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate four Canadian siting processes from the perspective of public participation and access to decision-making authority. Examples of siting processes related to hazardous waste management facilities are provided from the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Ontario. Siting has evolved from approaches dominated by top-down decision making to increasing decentralized and pluralistic approaches. Focusing on social and political concerns of potentially affected communities and on the process of decision making itself are fundamental to achieving siting success. In Alberta initially, and later in Manitoba, this new "open approach" to siting has resulted in the construction of the first two comprehensive hazardous waste treatment facilities in Canada.KEY WORDS: Hazardous waste facilities; Siting methodologies; Public participation     

Waste Management Strategy Development: A Case Study of Community Involvement and Consensus-Building in Hampshire

Public opposition to the siting of waste facilities has been partly explained by a failure to directly involve communities in fundamental policy decisions about waste management. Public participation at the local level is primarily reactive, based upon the premise of consultation on preferred strategies rather than direct involvement in their derivation. This paper presents the findings of a study into the effectiveness of a more proactive community involvement programme adopted by one English county council. The paper suggests some opportunities and barriers to public involvement in waste management strategy development and the potential effectiveness of consensus-building approaches.     

Failing to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities Voluntarily: Implications for the Production of Sustainable Goods

A current approach to the process of siting hazardous waste facilities is to seek 'willing host' communities that will not oppose but rather voluntarily accept risky facilities. Voluntary siting strategies have been put forward as the solution to hazardous waste location problems, and there have indeed been a small number of siting successes achieved voluntarily. This paper argues that, despite claims about voluntary processes, there are indications that few 'willing host' sites will be found in response to the many that are proposed. Instead, it suggests that the limited success of siting attempts, voluntary or otherwise, signals a new phase in hazardous waste management, a shift in focus from where to site a facility to whether a good is worth producing at all if its wastes are not siteable. A characteristic of this phase is the growing influence that the disposal potential of the generated waste can have on future management decisions to produce a good. In practice, siting failure may be one of the critical turning points on the road to sustainable production. It can accomplish what technology and environmental assessments have generally been unable to do: foresee the sustainability of a good. In this way, siteability can be seen as one indicator of sustainable production. A good can be considered sustainable if the wastes associated with its production are siteable.     

Public concerns and the public role in siting nuclear and chemical waste facilities

Nuclear and chemical waste facilities can be successfully sited, despitenimby responses, if siting programs account for the sources of public concern. Irrational fear is not the main source; instead, waste managers must deal with perceived inequities in the distribution of benefits and costs, and concern about facility safety. Benefit-cost inequities may be dealt with in part by keeping wastes where they are generated, through political restrictions, or by providing economic compensation and political incentives (for example, a local veto). Assuring people of facility safety includes allowing local control (monitoring, health assessment, regulation), and enhancing trust of facility managers through such means as rectifying past mistakes, individual-oriented education campaigns, and negotiation of compensation packages with local residents. These means should reduce —without eliminating—public opposition to local siting of nuclear and chemical waste facilities.     

Beyond self‐interest: a model of public attitudes towards waste facility siting

This study examines the attitudinal and demographic determinants of public preferences towards siting solid waste disposal facilities in the United States. Survey data is collected from a random sample of 400 individuals selected from the population of the State of Connecticut. A logit statistical model of public preferences towards siting is created. The results are consistent with previous research indicating the importance of variables reflective of self‐interest motivations, such as perceptions of costs and benefits, in influencing attitudes. However, it is also revealed that more longstanding values, in addition to narrowly defined personal costs and benefits, influence siting preferences. These include widely‐shared norms concerning need for the facility and the appropriate sphere of government influence. Effective, efficient and equitable siting policy must consider and respond to these additional public motivations.     

Historical paths of environmental injustice: a century of placing industrial facilities in Helsinki,Finland

The article explores the historical process of creating unjust environmental conditions in one geographical area in the Finnish capital, Helsinki. The study traces back the decision-making processes about placing environmentally burdensome, communal facilities, such as power plants, waste disposal and other infrastructural facilities. Also the lack of environmental amenities is investigated. The study covers a time period from the latter half of the nineteenth century to the 1980s. The historical analysis of the development of land-use decisions in the city is based on documentary and archival sources about the decision-making processes and it is conducted in the framework of distributive and procedural environmental justice. Four different periods of siting policies are identified. The motives for land-use decisions at each phase reflect geographical, political and historical reasoning. The concept of path dependency is introduced to explain, how environmental injustices were reproduced because of past paths of siting policies locked in subsequent decisions and created a negative twist of accumulating environmental burden.     

Public opinion and siting solid waste landfills in Kuwait

Siting municipal solid waste landfills in Kuwait had not considered public concerns about the location of such facilities. Kuwait Municipality has disposed urban waste in abandoned sand quarries for the past 20 years in an unplanned fashion. Due to this improper siting criteria, environmental and health problems have risen from old landfills that are located in residential areas. In an effort to help responsible decision-makers in assessing public support for siting landfills a structured, yet simple, questionnaire was designed and distributed to a random sample of heads of households. Statistical techniques were employed to examine trends and relationships between the sample public responses concerning landfill siting criteria. The findings of the research indicated that a significant percentage of the responding sample did not know about the various landfill impacts and less than 50% were aware of the negative impacts of landfills on the public health and the environment. The visual appearance of the landfill scored the lowest impact in the opinion of the sample public while the most important aspect in siting a landfill appeared to be its economic consideration. The research findings also directed attention to the important role that the media could play in increasing public awareness. Results from the cross-classification analysis demonstrated the existence of differences in awareness levels according to age, nationality, martial status, education, and occupation of the responding sample. Statistically, these differences were significant at the 95% significance level, as supported by the test of the χ-square.     

Siting America's geologic repository for high-level Nuclear Waste: Implications for environmental Policy

Siting a geologic repository for isolating highlevel nuclear waste up to 10,000 years is a controversial undertaking never before attempted in the United States. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 exempted repository siting from important requirements for environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. In December 1987, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act identified Yucca Mountain as the first site to be characterized for a high-level nuclear waste repository. In light of the unproven nature of the technology being evaluated, the scientific uncertainties associated with Yucca Mountain, and the lack of proven methods for risk evaluation, the environmental policies for repository siting represent a significant departure from more traditional, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary environmental review for siting nuclear projects. The policies warrant further study by those interested in how present as well as future decisions about complex technologies may be made.     

Wyoming's industrial siting permit process and environmental impact assessment

The problem of management of industrial residuals can be reduced through a rational system for siting and planning major industrial facilities. In the United States, Wyoming has moved in the direction of establishing a one-stop permitting system that provides important information for air and water quality planning and solid waste management with a minimum of regulatory overlap. This paper describes Wyoming's Industrial Development Information and Siting Act of 1975 and suggests ways in which the Wyoming permitting system can be improved and applied elsewhere.     

A comparative analysis of the psychosocial impacts of waste disposal facilities

This paper reports the results of a comparative analysis of the psychosocial impacts of municipal solid waste disposal facilities (both landfills and incinerators) in six communities in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Telephone surveys were administered to random samples of residents living around each facility between 1990 and 1995 (total n=1203). The results of logistic regression analyses show that type of facility was the strongest predictor of residents' awareness, concern, and actions taken in response to site concerns. Essentially, residents living in close proximity to a landfill had a higher probability of reporting awareness, concern or actions than residents living around an incinerator site. There was little evidence of differences in reactions between Ontario and British Columbia (BC) residents, despite variations in provincial policies on waste disposal. The effects of other predictors, with the exception of involvement in the local community, were not consistent, supporting previous findings that the determinants of facility impacts are outcome‐specific. It is essential that environmental managers take this constellation of factors into account in the operation of existing, or siting of new, facilities.     

Conflicting views on opposition to LULUs: distributive justice in three Japanese cases of waste disposal facility siting

Local residents often oppose some types of facilities because of their negative side effects, even though they are claimed to be necessary for the public good. These facilities are known as locally unwanted-land-uses, and local opposition to them is often referred to as not-in-my-backyard, usually with a pejorative connotation. However, some studies have challenged this conventional view of local opposition. Given these conflicting views, the present article explores how local mobilisation should be evaluated, focusing particularly on distributive justice. First, the study illuminates how different interpretations of distributive justice lead to difference in views on local opposition. Then, by comparing three waste disposal facility cases in Japan, a distinction between cost sharing and cost overlapping cases is illuminated. The study further develops discussions by pointing out the limits of using this distinction to evaluate local opposition movements and provides insights that can contribute to a fuller understanding of siting conflicts.     

Sweet for the sour: Incentives in environmental mediation

The siting of facilities with undesirable environmental characteristics often leads to public conflict. Efforts to resolve the conflict and make siting decisions frequently exacerbate the problem. Environmental mediation, the process of negotiating an agreeable settlement, is an accepted approach to resolving conflict. This paper explores the use of incentive systems as a means of achieving equity in environmental mediation. Obnoxious and noxious characteristics of facilities are discussed as the basis of conflicts. Four types of incentives—mitigation, compensation, reward, and participation—are discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the utility and application of incentives for solving environmental conflicts.     

Host community attitudes towards solid waste landfill infrastructure: comprehension before compensation

One of the most controversial planning issues internationally is the siting of waste disposal infrastructure in local communities. Compensation is viewed as a possible solution to siting difficulties in many countries. However, existing empirical evidence is conflicting as to whether or not compensation-based siting has reduced opposition to such developments. Thus, before compensation policy can be considered as the solution for recognising social costs and introducing equity into the waste planning system, it is important to understand why people reject waste disposal infrastructure developments and if this rejection continues over the lifetime of facility operations. This paper utilises information gathered through surveys to examine the effects of distance, local authority consultation efforts, experience and other factors, on attitudes towards non-hazardous solid waste landfill developments in two examples of a potential and actual host communities. Our findings suggest distance proxies expectations of environmental risk in communities with no experience of living with landfill infrastructure. Community consultations by authorities are consistently important, even after a landfill has been in operation for a number of years. This suggests to policy makers to consult thoroughly and adequately before pursuing compensation policies.     

Social Approval of the Community Assessment Model for Odor Dispersal: Results from a Citizen Survey

Odors emitted from US Midwest hog production facilities present farmers, residents, and state regulatory agencies with a set of complex challenges. To predict odor exposure from multiple swine production sources simultaneously, and to determine siting recommendations for proposed new or enlarged hog facilities, researchers at Iowa State University designed the community assessment model for odor dispersion (CAM). A three-county citizen survey conducted in Iowa examined the level of hypothetical social acceptance of the modeling process, and level of trust in CAM results. While 69 % of respondents approved of modeling as a way to determine the most socially appropriate location for production sites, only 35 % would trust the results if potential odor exposure from a new facility were proposed to be built near their home. We analyzed approval of the CAM model, and level of trust, across a number of demographic, attitudinal, and belief factors regarding environmental quality and the hog industry. Overall, trust in CAM was uneven and varied across respondents. Those residents who would not trust CAM tended to be more concerned with environmental quality and less inclined to believe that the hog industry is critically important economically. Those who would not trust CAM results also had significantly more direct experience with odors. Findings point to predominantly positive, yet equivocal acceptance of CAM results among the citizenry, which is not unexpected given conflict typical of siting decisions in industry and waste disposal arenas. Recommendations are offered regarding the interaction of trust, beliefs and attitudes and the utility of CAM.     

From Siting Principles to Siting Practices: A Case Study of Discord among Trust,Equity and Community Participation

This paper contributes to the noxious facilities siting literature by exploring some implications of adhering to some recommended principles and practices for competent siting. Through a qualitative case study of a landfill siting process in Peel (Ontario, Canada) three principles are critically assessed: trust; equity; and community participation. While laudable notions in principle, in practice they can impact each other in important ways which can (potentially) undermine the siting process. These impacts result mainly from the failure to achieve meaningful goals associated with one principle (e.g. community participation) which can exacerbate problems achieving goals associated with other principles (e.g. trust). The resulting discord can be further aggravated by the snowballing of adverse effects over time. In particular, practices for achieving trust and equity were adversely linked, as were the relationships between spatial equity and procedural equity and interregional and intraregional equity. These adverse synergisms were linked together with ineffective community participation which brought the process to a halt. Siting inertia (a process momentum difficult to redirect) and an inflexible siting context contributed to these conflicts. Implications for siting and further research are discussed.     

Environmental justice: A louisiana case study

The paper begins with a brief analysis of the concepts of environmental justice and environmental racism and classism. The authors argue that pollution- and environment-related decision-making is prima facie wrong whenever it results in inequitable treatment of individuals on the basis of race or socio-economic status. The essay next surveys the history of the doctrine of free informed consent and argues that the consent of those affected is necessary for ensuring the fairness of decision-making for siting hazardous facilities. The paper also points out that equal opportunity to environmental protection and free informed consent are important rights. Finally, it presents a case study on the proposed uranium enrichment facility near Homer, Louisiana and argues that siting the plant would violate norms of distributive equity and free informed consent. It concludes that siting the facility is a case of environmental injustice and likely an example of environmental racism or classism.     

A struggle for distributive fairness in waste disposal: Koto Ward and In-Ward Waste Disposal in the 23 wards of Tokyo

This study explores the politics of distributive fairness in Locally-Unwanted-Land-Uses (LULUs) siting by looking into how a movement in LULU disputes changes its attitude towards a frame of distributive fairness over a long period of time. Some kinds of facilities are often opposed by local residents because of negative side-effects, even as they are claimed to be necessary for the well-being of the wider public. Framing refers to actors’ signifying work, and how to frame distributive fairness plays a significant role in conflicts over such controversial land uses. In the 23 wards of Tokyo, distributive fairness in waste disposal among the wards has been a crucial issue. In the early 1970s, Koto Ward, which suffered a disproportionate burden of waste disposal, launched a campaign to rectify the unfairness. In-Ward Waste Disposal (IWWD), a frame of distributive fairness, played a central role in this movement. However, Koto Ward’s attitude towards this frame of distributive fairness changed over time. By examining why Koto Ward’s advocacy for IWWD varied over time, this study shows how Koto Ward’s stance on IWWD changed in conjunction with economic, policy, and political circumstances, thereby illuminating the importance of integrating socio-politico-economic contexts in framing analysis.     

Why not in your backyard? scientific data and nonrational decisions about risk

The siting of hazardous waste facilities constitutes a special case of the many no win environmental decisions we face. They share common features: (a) we must decide something; (b) the decision affects some people more than others; (c) as scientists we are not 100% confident of our research results; (d) elements of the decision remain unquantifiable; and (e) decisions combine both scientific and political elements. In this paper we attempt to illustrate and analyze several examples that combine all of these elements and to suggest methods which would lead toward a scientific valid and politically useful resolution. Using well-known examples such as the public's fear of death from nuclear power, snakebite, and smoking, we attempt to integrate public perception of risks into a decision-making model. Finally, the conclusions deal with the role of policy making, public perception, and science in resolving environmental controversies. We do not, however, solve this perplexing problem.     

Medical waste management in Korea

The management of medical waste is of great importance due to its potential environmental hazards and public health risks. In the past medical waste was often mixed with municipal solid waste and disposed of in residential waste landfills or improper treatment facilities (e.g. inadequately controlled incinerators) in Korea. In recent years, many efforts have been made by environmental regulatory agencies and waste generators to better manage the waste from healthcare facilities. This paper presents an overview of the current management practices of medical waste in Korea. Information regarding generation, composition, segregation, transportation, and disposal of medical wastes is provided and discussed. Medical waste incineration is identified as the most preferred disposal method and will be the only available treatment option in late 2005. Faced with increased regulations over toxic air emissions (e.g. dioxins and furans), all existing small incineration facilities that do not have air pollution control devices will cease operation in the next few years. Large-scale medical waste incinerators would be responsible for the treatment of medical waste generated by most healthcare facilities in Korea. It is important to point out that there is a great potential to emit air toxic pollutants from such incinerators if improperly operated and managed, because medical waste typically contains a variety of plastic materials such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Waste minimization and recycling, control of toxic air emissions at medical waste incinerators, and alternative treatment methods to incineration are regarded to be the major challenges in the future.     

Siting and Routing Assessment for Solid Waste Management Under Uncertainty Using the Grey Mini-Max Regret Criterion

Solid waste management (SWM) is at the forefront of environmental concerns in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV), South Texas. The complexity in SWM drives area decision makers to look for innovative and forward-looking solutions to address various waste management options. In decision analysis, it is not uncommon for decision makers to go by an option that may minimize the maximum regret when some determinant factors are vague, ambiguous, or unclear. This article presents an innovative optimization model using the grey mini-max regret (GMMR) integer programming algorithm to outline an optimal regional coordination of solid waste routing and possible landfill/incinerator construction under an uncertain environment. The LRGV is an ideal location to apply the GMMR model for SWM planning because of its constant urban expansion, dwindling landfill space, and insufficient data availability signifying the planning uncertainty combined with vagueness in decision-making. The results give local decision makers hedged sets of options that consider various forms of systematic and event-based uncertainty. By extending the dimension of decision-making, this may lead to identifying a variety of beneficial solutions with efficient waste routing and facility siting for the time frame of 2005 through 2010 in LRGV. The results show the ability of the GMMR model to open insightful scenario planning that can handle situational and data-driven uncertainty in a way that was previously unavailable. Research findings also indicate that the large capital investment of incineration facilities makes such an option less competitive among municipal options for landfills. It is evident that the investment from a municipal standpoint is out of the question, but possible public–private partnerships may alleviate this obstacle.