1 edition of Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition found in the catalog.
Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition
1979 by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water & Waste Management, [U.S. G.P.O.] in [Washington, D.C.] .
Written in English
|Statement||[prepared by Centaur Associates, Inc.].|
|Contributions||Centaur Associates., United States. Office of Solid Waste., United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water & Waste Management.|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||v, 388 p. :|
|Number of Pages||388|
Siting technological facilities: How can an appropriate location for a new technological plant such as a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal or a hazardous waste facility be determined? These facilities frequently evoke objections from local people—communities usually favor such a facility only if it is located elsewhere (Popper, ). Toxic waste is any unwanted material in all forms that can cause harm (e.g. by being inhaled, swallowed, or absorbed through the skin). Many of today's household products such as televisions, computers and phones contain toxic chemicals that can pollute the air and contaminate soil and ing of such waste is a major public health issue. of new waste disposal Even economic incentives have failed in convincing most communities to accept these facilities, al though a few localities have said yes to cash. 11 Commentators have Written extensively about the problems of siting new hazardous waste disposal facilities and cleaning up old.
Sheffield City Battalion
ancient mysteries of Delphi: Pythagoras.
Memoirs of the most eminent American mechanics
quest for life in a
Colour and culture in South Africa
Lighting fittings, performance and design
Teachers guideslines for evaluating commercial phonics packages
colossal diversion of water into the Chicago drainage canal
Ceili dance time in Ireland
Finite-dimensional vector spaces.
Kings Inns portraits
Report on the petition of sundry inhabitants of the city of Washington and District of Columbia
Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The NIMBY Syndrome (Contributions in Afro-American) by Kent Portney (Author)Cited by: Get this from a library.
Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition: final report. [Centaur Associates.; United States. Office of Solid Waste.;]. Siting of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities and Public Opposition John A.
Duberg Michael L. Frankel Christopher M. Niemczewski This project was carried out under con- tract No. for the U,S. En- viro n men tal Pro tectio n by: 3. ISBN: OCLC Number: Description: xiv, pages: illustrations ; 24 cm: Contents: 1. The hazardous waste crisis and the siting imperative Risk, fear, and local opposition: "Not in my backyard" Winners and losers: The siting problem in its political context.
All the attention to it notwithstanding, the public's opposition to the siting of hazardous waste facilities would be better seen, from a problem solving perspective, as a derivative rather than a fundamental issue for society.
Attention to the siting problem is by: PUBLIC RESPONSE, The siting and/or operation of nearly all the hazardous waste management facilities visited has given rise to at least some public concern or opposition.1 Only a few received some support from the public, tacit or otherwise, and in most cases.
PUBLIC RESPONSE, The siting and/or operation of nearly all the hazardous waste management facilities visited has given rise to at least some public concern or opposition.1 Only a few received some support from the public, tacit or otherwise, and in most cases this public support was due to actions taken by the sponsor.
Fuller and more accurate information should not, therefore, be viewed as the lever for overcoming public opposition to a hazardous waste facility. On the other hand, it is a necessary ingredient for a responsible siting process.
The principal barrier to facility siting is community opposition: “not in my backyard”. Experience amply justifies this opposition. Communities have learned, largely from the media, that hazardous waste facilities endanger public health, air and water quality, property values, peace of mind and quality of life.
siting of hazardous waste facilities near or within their communities. Research has shown that these com munities have been disproportionately chosen as potential sites for RCRA facilities (Bryant and Mohai, ; Bullard, ; United Church of Christ, ).
In addition, numerous communities have raised such concerns to EPA. This is a book review of a collection of essays on planning and siting hazardous waste facilities and sites. The authors were top researchers in the s and s and the book was edited by Don.
Public opposition continues to stymie siting of new hazardous waste management facilities in the United States. State of Kansas Department of Health and Environment Waste Management Program Topeka, Kansas.
The issues involved with Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (IHWMF) siting have been studied, reported and discussed at length over the past few Size: KB. responses to hazardous waste facilities have been done.
This study reviews the options in hazardous waste facility site selection and the public participation model for siting the hazardous waste facility. Moreover, it examines public participation in a Thai context, the barrier factors and the resulting recommendations from the case study of.
Success in waste management, nationally and in every region of the country, founders on the impasse of today's siting paralysis.
Facilities are needed, desperately; but they cannot be sited in the face of intense local opposition. Most people would agree that such facilities are needed -- but nearly everyone wants them located in someone else's Cited by: This study uses the case of hazardous waste facility siting to explain why the American political system is hard put to overcome the local opposition.
The fragmentation of political authority gives local opponents many routes of attack, just as it gives officials many ways to avoid responsibility. During the late 's the Love Canal hazardous waste site in New York State, U.S.A.
became a benchmark for negative feelings towards the siting of future hazardous waste landfills and facilities. At the present time social and political factors often dominate the siting process.
There is growing anxiety being shown by the public about the location of waste facilities, and especially for Author: Michael J. Knight. partially reduce public opposition to hazardous waste facility siting deci-sions.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses are offered: H1: The provision of additional state funds to a community is associated with an increase in citizens' willingness to accept a hazardous waste facility. H2: The provision of public representation in negotiations involv.
It might be noted that the estimates of the proportions contributed by these various industrial sectors changed considerably in less than a decade; see, by way of contrast, those cited by David Morell and Christopher Magorian (Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: Local Opposition and the Myth of Preemption, Cambridge, MA, Ballinger,p.
4).Author: Don Munton. to clean up contaminated sites) with MICHAEL O'HARE ET AL., FACILITY SITING AND PUBLIC OPPOSITION () (discussing how to overcome public opposition to siting waste disposal facilities) and Delogu, supra note 3 and Tarlock, supra note 3. 13 See generally Martin, supra n at ; Stroup, supra n at The broader social need for safe hazardous waste management facilities often has not been strongly represented in the siting process.
A common result has been that facilities have not been sited, and there has been no significant increase in hazardous waste capacity over the past several years. Public opposition continues to stymie siting of new hazardous waste management facilities in the United States.
A review of the literature indicates that much effort has been undertaken in the states to institutionalize public participation in the siting process.
ASPECTS OF SITING HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES UNIT 4 1 5 ENGINEERING RISK MANAGEMENT know one thing: they must find the answers for themselves.
They should not rely on government and industry. While they may ask traditional environmentalists like myself for. In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section (a) bans facilities from siting new hazardous waste management units within feet of a Holocene fault (that is, faults that have been active within the l years).
These faults are located. The virtual inability to open new hazardous waste management facilities in Canada and the United States stems directly from a form of community opposition so common and vehement that it is commonly identified as a syndrome: Not In My Back Yard (or NIMBY).
Whether such facilities are proposed by governmental agencies. The first outlines general principles that should guide site selection and explains the main phases in the planning and siting process.
The second chapter discusses the many complex issues that determine the need for facilities, including technologies that can reduce emissions at the source, and offers advice on the acquisition of data for. Public Perception of Hazardous Waste1 it is concluded that the siting of a nuclear fuel waste disposal facility must make the decentralization of decision-making authority to local communities.
"The Politics of Public Participation in Hazardous Waste Management." In James P. Lester and Ann O'M. Bowman, eds., The Politics of Hazardous Waste Management Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Google ScholarCited by: This volume analyzes the politics of hazardous waste siting and explores promising new strategies for siting facilities. Existing approaches to waste siting facilities have almost entirely failed, across all industrialized countries, largely because of community or NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) opposition.
The virtual inability to open new hazardous waste management facilities in Canada and the United States stems directly from a form of community opposition so common and vehement that it is commonly identified as a syndrome: Not In My Back Yard (or NIMBY)/5(3).
Assessment of national systems for obtaining local siting acceptance of nuclear waste management facilities. Final report. Vol Background on political structure and formal system for approving waste management siting decisions.
Vol Summary of principal new developments relating to the siting of waste management facilities (–). Hazardous waste management refers to a carefully organized system in which wastes go through appropriate pathways to their ultimate elimination or disposal in ways that protect human health and the environment.
It involves generation, treatment. PROT. AGENCY, SITING OF HAZARD-OUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND PUBLIC OPPOSITION (); Lawrence S. Bacow & James R. Milkey, Overcoming Local Opposition to Hazardous Waste Facilities: The Massachusetts Approach, 6 HARV.
ENvTL. REV.(); Gail Bingham &. The issues faced by proponents of various waste management projects and energy projects that give rise to public opposition are discussed in the first section. A second section discusses the demographic features associated with public opposition and support of facility siting, as well as a personality profile of the conflicting sides.
The demand for siting new hazardous waste disposal facilities has grown nationally during the past decade while opposition to these facilities has also increased.
At the heart of this controversy is Author: Jeannette M. Trauth. Site selection for new hazardous waste management facilities. : World Health Organization.
Regional Office for Europe offering practical advice on attitudes that help explain public opposition, common errors in dealing with the public that can defeat technically worthwhile projects, and negotiating strategies that can.
Effective waste management is dependent upon achieving informed consensus amongst interested parties. Public concerns and opposition present a Cited by: tory changes have provided enhanced opportunities, resources, and access points for parties opposed to the siting of hazardous facilities (Regens ).
Opposition to siting has been attributed to not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) syndrome, and the general decline of trust in. The book concludes with the suggestion that these strategies can be applied to other NIMBY-blocked proposals, such as siting for prisons, drug and alcohol treatment centers, and nursing homes.
"Rabe's book should contribute to the ongoing debate over hazardous waste facility : $ If government programs to manage hazardous wastes are to be successful, it will be necessary to ameliorate public opposition to the siting of hazardous waste facilities.
This paper reports on an empirical study conducted to determine whether public opposition to the siting of hazardous waste facilities might be reduced through proposed programs of compensation or enhanced environmental monitoring.
The virtual inability to open new hazardous waste management facilities in Canada and the United States stems directly from a form of community opposition so common and vehement that it is commonly identified as a syndrome: Not In My Back Yard (or NIMBY).4/5.'This book offers an antidote to the NIMBY syndrome that has brought hazardous waste facility siting to a virtual standstill in Canada and the United States.
It is a thoughtful, perceptive work with lots of useful lessons for both policymakers and scholars, and an unusually hopeful work, in a field normally characterized by gloom and by: The book concludes with the suggestion that these strategies can be applied to other NIMBY-blocked proposals, such as siting for prisons, drug and alcohol treatment centers, and nursing homes.
"Rabe's book should contribute to the ongoing debate over hazardous waste facility : Barry Rabe.