Developing host community siting packages for waste facilities

ELSEVIER

ENVIRONMENTAL NEGOTIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

D E V E L O P I N G HOST C O M M U N I T Y SITING PACKAGES FOR WASTE FACILITIES

Chris Zeiss and L i a n n e Lefsrud University o f Alberta

Many types o f benefits are conceivable as measures to offset waste facility impacts in a host community. Some may be ineffective or even detrimental to facility acceptance. It is in the best interest o f the host community as well as the facility proponent to select and negotiate the most effective measures f o r a siting package. Properly sequenced, effective measures reduce time and effort required to negotiate agreements, and they may reduce the value o f required siting measures. This article derives key principles and elements o f siting packages: (1) need identification, (2) technical and site optimality, (3) waste stream control, (4) impact reduction management, (5) benefits, compensation, incentives, and (6) process management are shown to be important elements f o r siting waste facilities. A n analysis o f reported siting cases, however, shows that need justification, technology and site choice, and waste stream controls are infrequently used, whereas compensation benefits are often used in conjunction with process management and impact reduction. The article concludes that creative use o f need identification, technology selection, and waste stream control may improve siting agreement success, shorten the negotiation process, and result in less costly agreements.

Study Objective and Tasks Siting agreements may contain a large range and variety of "incentives" measures to avoid, reduce, or redress actual or possible impacts caused by waste Address requests for reprints to."Chris Zeiss, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G7, Canada.

ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1995;12:157-178 © 1995 Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0195-9255/95/$9.50 SSDi 0195-9255(95)00003-W

158

CHRIS ZEISS AND LIANNE LEFSRUD

facilities. Because the possibilities are so diverse, the choice of the most effective measures and of the appropriate sequence for use are extremely important to avoid expensive, ineffective measures and, maybe more importantly, to avoid unintended negative effects caused by the "incentive" measures themselves. The selection of positive and effective elements for siting packages must be based on valid siting principles. The objectives of this article are: (1) to derive key siting principles, (2) to evaluate the use of siting measures in reported siting case studies, and (3) to identify c o m m o n deficiencies or weaknesses in the use of siting measures for constructing comprehensive siting agreements. To this purpose, the researchers collected and analyzed 67 siting cases published within the last 12 years on the topics of siting measures and their sequence to negotiate siting agreements. Five major components of siting packages were identified and categorized: (1) need identification and status quo comparisoll, (2) technology and site choice, (3) waste stream controls, (4) impact management, control, mitigation and remediation, and (5) facility benefits, compensation, and other incentives. In the next section, the key principles and elements are derived from a content analysis of the literature and discussed. In the third section, these principles are compared with the elements identified in the case studies to develop findings and make suggestions for the emphasis and sequence of elements to be included in a host community siting package.

Summary of Key Principles and Elements of Siting Packages

Need Identification and Status Quo Comparison The large societal benefits of waste facilities are often apparent and undisputed. However, the facility's capability to fulfill a locally apparent need is scarcely analyzed. Although this point may appear intuitive, several studies in Canada and the U.S. support the importance of determining the local need in addition to the broader societal need for the facility (Gregory et al. 1991; McQuaidCook and Simons 1989; Camerer and Kunreuther 1989; Zeiss 1988; Zeiss and Paddon 1992, for all waste facilities). Need is defined, for the purposes of siting, as the recognition of a deficiency in the status quo. A need is created when the status quo condition is inadequate relative to a desired or expected condition, the reference point. Therefore, need, by this definition, is caused by the community perception that they are in the loss domain on the prospect theory value curve without the proposed facility (Figure 1; Zeiss 1991). Thus, need fulfillment differs from simply acquiring facility benefits. The attributes where there is a salient community need may not be intuitively traded off with other kinds of facility benefits (money, fire trucks, etc.) because community attributes are likely kept in different mental accounts (Thaler 1985). If, however, the facility can be framed, that is, designed and presented, so that it addresses existing discrepancies in the community, then the value of the facility to the community is likely to

DEVELOPING HOST COMMUNITY SITING PACKAGES FOR WASTE FACILITIES

Value

Value

&L Loss

j

,, ~

159

Gain

V&G &G

Gain

Z~G= AL V6L

FIGURE 1. Residents' value curves for facility impact losses and benefits. (A) Prospect theory value curve; from: Kahnemann and Tversky (1979). (B) loss reduction value exceeds compensating gain value.

be much improved before other incentives are added. In past cases this has resulted, on one hand, in better community acceptance and, on the other, in possibly lower incentive demands. Defining the facility need is synonymous with, first, determining that the status quo is unacceptable (that there is a "need to do something") and second, defining why and how the facility can improve on the status quo (Zeiss and Paddon 1992; National Facility Siting Credo 1990). Zeiss and Paddon (1992) and Carlson (1991) mention and illustrate need identification as an element for the host communities of waste facilities and prisons. Jaffe (1991) concludes that need definition should occur before negotiating other siting package elements. Kemp (1992) and Carnes et al. (1983) extend the requirement to justify the need for each compensation and incentive measure. All compensation and incentive measures, it is suggested, should be justified in terms of local need (Kemp 1992). Their purpose, structure, implementation, and consequences should be carefully designed to fit specific community needs. This is proposed principally to avoid the impression of directing attention away from key issues with bribes (Carnes et al. 1983). Need definition and status quo unacceptability should be established from the host community's perspective, should be discussed early for the facility and, later, for each compensation and incentive measure.

Choice o f Technology and Site The selection of technology (and a site) that is considered the best option is important for achieving tolerance to move from the status quo in a host community (Easterling 1992). The reduction o f impacts through site and technology selection means the politically most amenable site should not always be

160

CHRIS ZEISS AND LIANNE LEFSRUD

preferred. The demonstration of technical optimality indicates to host communities that they are not being strategically chosen because they may offer the least political resistance (Kraft and Clary 1991). One site is not always clearly optimal, so a set of "suitable" or "better" sites might also serve the purpose of demonstrating the achievement of a better situation with the proposed facility (McQuaid-Cook and Simons 1989).

Waste Materials Limitations on waste type, quantity, toxicity, sources, and source areas are occasionally identified as relevant components for siting agreements (Nieves et al. 1992; Centaur Associates 1979; Zeiss and Atwater 1987; Zeiss and Paddon 1992). Although not always possible due to the facility scope, the exclusion or monitoring of specific wastes might be considered. Waste stream limitations technically prevent impacts, but also contribute to fairness and community control.

Impact Reduction Through Management, Control, Mitigation, and Remediation The reduction of salient impacts and risks to health and the environment are found to be effective in allaying community concerns. Essentially, optimal technology, site choice, and waste stream controls are prevention measures to reduce facility impacts (see Figure 2, Zeiss 1991). •

Prevention is defined as a measure that affects the cause prior to the emis-

Cause

WasteTronsporl

W0sle Generolors

I....~

Erniller

Waste Disposol Focilily

Emission Tronsport

Impact Receplor Hosl Comrnunily

Prevention

FIGURE 2. Typical waste disposal system (from Zeiss 1988, 1990).

DEVELOPING HOST COMMUNITY SITING PACKAGES FOR WASTE FACILITIES

•

•

161

sion source, i.e., before the siting process begins or before the waste stream reaches the facility, and results in a reduction of facility impacts. Controls are measures that reduce impacts through design or operating measures to reduce emissions, e.g., air pollution controls, landfill liners, etc. In other words, control measures are elements o f engineering design or operation that take affect only if and when the facility is operating. Mitigation comprises all measures to reduce impacts downstream from the facility and after the facility is built. Basically this category includes measures outside the compliance boundary, i.e., those that reduce impacts at the receptor rather than at the source.

Prevention, engineering controls, mitigation, and monitoring (Figure 2) are preferred over compensation with alternate benefits (Portney 1991; Zeiss 1991; Johnson 1987). Once stringent measures are effectively used to meet strict standards of physical risk then other incentive measures can be discussed (Zeiss and Paddon 1992; Kemp 1992; Portney 1991; Gregory et al. 1991; Kunreuther et al. 1990; Bacow and Milkey 1982; Duberg et al. 1980; Mank 1991; and others). Apparent nuisance impacts (odor, noise, view) can trigger underlying concerns about community image (Zeiss and Atwater 1991). The trigger effects are easily screened and reduced with buffers and landscaping (McClelland et al. 1990). These measures can effectively reduce compensation because they address the community image concern and thereby reduce one of the most important influences on the level of compensation and length of negotiations as reported by Nieves et al. (1992) for 21 solid waste sites in Wisconsin. Finally, a focus by the community on infrastructure requirements and issues was determined to reduce the compensation required (Nieves et al. 1992). Local control, liaison, inspection, monitoring, power to shut-down the facility, access to information, and establishment of emergency plans have been identified by several researchers as important components of impact management (Carnes et al. 1983; Elliot 1984; Davis 1985; Johnson 1987; Nieves et al. 1992). Often the element of local control is integrated into the choice of impact management measures and o f monitoring and remediation measures (Elliott 1984; Zeiss and Paddon 1992). In summary, impact management through community choice of prevention, control, mitigation, monitoring, and remediation measures is an essential component o f a siting package before outright compensation can be effectively negotiated.

Benefits, Compensation, and Incentives ANCILLARYBENEFITS. Benefits, or ancillary positive effects, o f the facility usually consist o f local employment during construction and operation, improvements to roads and infrastructure, additional taxes (or payment in lieu of taxes), economic diversification, and attraction o f new business. For some facilities

162

CHRIS ZEISS AND LIANNE LEFSRUD

and communities, these benefits are significant. However, waste facility benefits alone are seldom sufficient to make the community equally well or better off (Bord et al. 1985; Zeiss and Atwater 1987; Bacow and Milkey 1982; Duberg et al. 1980; Vari et al. 1991; Mank 1991). COMPENSATION. In order to protect the community from additional negative impacts that cannot be, or are too costly or complex to reduce, compensation measures are added to directly replace, offset, or pay the value of impact damages. Compensation is, in this definition, tied to specific impacts caused by the facility. Property value guarantees, improved infrastructure, property tax payments either to the community or to land owners, insurance costs, closure, and clean-up funds are examples of monetary compensation methods, whereas free disposal services, replacement of affected habitat, water supplies, and provision of emergency vehicles are in kind compensation tools (Zeiss and Paddon 1992; Gregory et al. 1991; Camerer and Kunreuther 1989; Carnes et al, 1983; Gregory and Kunreuther 1991; Zeiss 1991). Compensation can be structured as (1) ex-ante to address fairness, (2) interim to protect against tangible losses, and (3) ex-post compensation to defray losses from future events or losses (accidents, closure, clean-up, Gregory et al. 1991; Small 1985). Failure to provide compensation in addition to ancillary facility benefits has been shown to contribute to siting failure (Bord et al. 1985). In contrast, many studies have found that too much reliance on compensation measures without prior attention to impact management and reduction has also often lead to failed siting agreements (Hadden 1991; Gregory et al. 1991; Zeiss and Atwater 1987; Duberg et al. 1980; McClelland et al. 1990; Davis 1984). Some evidence suggests that in-kind compensation is more effective (Gregory and Kunreuther 1990; Camerer and Kunreuther 1989; Davis 1984; Greenberg et al. 1984; Carnes et al. 1983) whereas many results support considering compensation last, that is, after impact reduction measures (Bacow and Milkey 1982; Portney 1991; Gregory et al. 1991; Hadden 1991, etc.) and identify the principle of carefully connecting each compensation measure to a recognized need (Carnes et al. 1983) in order to avoid the connotation of bribes. Compensation measures are considered less effective than impact reduction control and monitoring measures (Portney 1991; Zeiss 1991) and should be negotiated only if local controls are effective and then only if residual health and environmental risks and trigger impacts are below acceptable limits. orm~R INCE~TrVES. Incentives, or equity benefits, consist of all additional payments or in-kind benefits offered to leave the host community better off. These are often presented as payments for inequity (Bacow and Milkey 1982; Carnes et al. 1983; Gregory et al. 1991; Hadden 1991), protection from community stigmata (Kunreuther et al. 1990), payments for inconvenience and "someone

DEVELOPING HOST COMMUNITY SITING PACKAGES FOR WASTE FACILITIES

163

else's waste" (Himmelberger 1991; Wall Street Journal 1991; Portney 1991; Kunreuther et al. 1990), incentives for risk assumption (Inhaber 1991), or to increase facility benefits or enhance the local economy (McQuaid-Cook and Simons 1989). Incentives, too, are best negotiated only after impact reduction and compensation measures have been exhausted and the perceived risk is reduced below a certain level (Bacow and Milkey 1982; Kunreuther et al. 1990; Mank 1991; Davis 1984) to avoid the perception o f bribery. Most frequently reported incentives measures are royalties or tipping fees of $0.50 to $7/ton, contributions to local charities, direct rebates to persons or payments to communities (Smail 1985). Although some researchers report good siting success with direct payments (Himmelberger 1991), others show moderate to low effect on the attitudes of c o m m u n i t y residents toward waste facilities (Portney 1991; Zeiss 1991; Carnes et al. 1983; Kunreuther et al. 1990). Although considered less effective and, hence, best negotiated last in the siting process, benefits, compensation, and other incentives are often designed to address specific needs and concerns related to the facility (as suggested by the principle described previously, Carnes et al. 1983) that cannot be further prevented, controlled or mitigated. Most o f the compiled measures in Table 1 focus on specific issues and reflect a rationale that relates level of compensation to facility effect. Incentives are extra benefits that are best offered as separate items, rather than as a package, in order to improve their perceived value (see Figure 1). This approach is predicted to be more effective, because the separate value o f each incentive is then counted on the steeper initial slope shown on the right-hand side o f the value curve (Figure 1).

Analysis of Siting Agreement Principles In order to test the use of key principles in a wide range of actual siting cases, 67 cases reported in the literature since 1983 were collated (see Table 2). Then these case studies were reviewed to determine the implemented siting measures and the outcome o f the siting attempt. Table 3 categorizes these case studies and the frequency of combinations of measures by outcome. The clustering o f siting cases by outcome in Table 3 shows most outcomes falling into two opposite corners: single measure siting approaches, all without need identification led to unsuccessful outcomes (eight cases in upper lefthand corner), whereas approaches that combined measures into an integrated package were clearly more successful with a total o f 42 positive outcomes. Although some single measure cases succeeded (four cases with measure 3, benefits, compensation and incentives), the community was still opposed. In contrast, some communities rejected integrated siting offers. Although the set of siting studies is possibly biased because fewer failed outcomes may have been reported the combined use of need identification, impact reduction, com-

7 7 I1 11 2

Incentives • Donations to improve local services, activities, and facilities-cultural, educational, and recreational • Direct payments of cash, taxes, or rebates to residents within certain area • Surcharge of waste handled, tipping fees, percentage of gross income • Linking to future desirable facility or exemption from future undesirable facilities

11

16

1

8

15 7 7

1

2

1

12 2

1

12

Number of Times Implemented in Siting Cases (or encountered in literature)

Compensation • Property value guarantees • Support of increased infrastructure costs, pay residents' property taxes • Replacement of damaged resource-water supply, recreational areas, habitats • Reduction of general health risks-improved local hospital facilities, improved fire protection, first aid courses clean-up/rehabilitation of existing dump sites in area • Payment for inconvenience or disruption • Compensation for socioeconomic impacts by improving community amenities-build attractive facility in the community, repave streets, provide scholarships • Provision of facility can meet future obligations should there be an accident or damage-insurance, performance bonds, contingency fund • Increases to services to locals-free or reduced disposal costs for residents, good neighbor services like equipment lending

Ancillary benefits • Increased local employment • Employment training • Development/economic diversification, increase in tax base • Benefit assurances-guarantee employment or contract materials and services from local suppliers • Upgraded local utilities • Improvement in environment, materials, and resource recovery • Convenience of disposal

Specific Measure

TABLE 1. Frequency of Increased Benefits

DEVELOPINGHOSTCOMMUNITYSITINGPACKAGESFOR WASTEFACILITIES

165

pensation, and process management are supported by theory and successful siting attempts. For more detail, four cases were selected and analyzed for the types and combinations of siting elements by siting outcome (see Table 4): (1) single measure failed attempts (Bord et al. 1985), (2) combined measure attempts which were sited, but opposed or are still undecided (Kemp 1992), and (3) combined measure successful siting attempts (see Table 4).

Case Study 1: Pennsylvania Low Level Nuclear Waste (Bord et al. 1985) To fulfill federal regulations to manage Pennsylvania's radioactive waste, a locally known nuclear industrial company proposed to build a low-level treatment facility in the southwestern part of the state. An education program and preliminary survey were completed. Public relations were viewed unnecessary as the proponent had a good record of waste management. The local need for the facility seemed obvious as the community required additional industry. Immediately after the public announcement of the facility proposal, a local protest group formed. The group proceeded to dominate public meetings and the town sentiments. The facility was opposed. A follow up survey showed that the benefits were insufficient and need definition, and impact reduction measures were preferred. Lack of trust in the proponent and the regulator and request for additional information suggest that the community should have been included in the decision process.

Case Study 2: Interstate Compacts (Kemp 1992) CENTRAL XNTERSTATECOMPACT The Central Interstate C o m p a c t was formed between Nebraska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Louisiana to deal with the states' low-level radioactive waste. Each state was to take a 30 year turn in hosting the site, with Nebraska hosting the first facility. An extensive public education campaign was implemented and it was made known that $2 million in revenue from operations would go to the host community. Then, communities were asked if they would be willing to host the facility, and there was considerable interest-- three candidate sites were identified. A statewide citizens' advisory committee was established to assist in the choice o f the site and investigation and the facility design choice. Local monitoring committees were also established to oversee the work and liaise with the public. C o m m u n i t y concern regarding radionuclide migration led to a facility redesign. Then the government and the citizens' advisory committee, left the negotiations to the proponent and the inexperienced local monitoring committees. The facility is being constructed even though there is considerable opposition. CENTRAL MIDWEST INTERSTATE COMPACT (KEMP 1992). The Central Midwest Interstate C o m p a c t was established between Illinois and Kentucky to site a low-level radioactive waste facility in Illinois to deal with the states' wastes.

Yucca mountain high-level nuclear waste repository Yucca mountain high-level nuclear waste repository Yucca mountain high-level nuclear waste repository Low-level radioactive waste repository

6

7

6

6

Low-level radioactive waste repository

Low-level radioactive waste repository

Low income housing

3-5

2

Low-level radioactive waste repository Low-level radioactive waste reduction and incinerator

Facility

Siting Case Studies

1

Case Study

TABLE 2.

Appalachian compact Some community in Pennsylvania Central Midwest Interstate compact Some community in Illinois Central Interstate compact Some community in Nebraska

Survey of national and Nevada residents

Literature review and critique

Surveyed small community in southwestern Pennsylvania after siting failure Yarmouth, Brewster and Scituate, Massachusetts Survey of Nevada residents

Port Hope, Ontario

Community

Facility sited but opposed

In the siting process

In the siting process

Facility not sited

Facility not sited

Facility not sited

Facilities sited

Facility not sited

Facility not sited

Siting Success

Kemp (1992)

Kemp (1992)

Kemp (1992)

Kunreuther et al. (1990)

Flynn et al. (1992)

Easterling (1992)

Dorius (1993)

Bord et al. (1985)

Armour (1991)

Reference

Hazardous waste disposal facility Hazardous waste treatment and storage facility 21 waste facilities (13 solid waste sites, four sludge disposal sites, three fly ash sites, and one nonhazardous foundry waste site) Solid waste landfill Solid waste landfill

12

Grey Rock Power Plant

Hazardous waste facilities

39

40-41

64-67

54-63

53

Hazardous waste transfer station Hazardous waste transfer stations

Solid waste landfill

38

42-45 46-52

Solid waste landfill

37

35 36

14-34

13

Hazardous waste facilities

10-11

Small communities across Alberta

Morinville, Alberta

Review of facility siting cases

Mobile, Arizona Riverside County, California CasweU County, North Carolina Gilliam County, Washington Wyoming community

Wisconsin communities

Two small North Carolina communities Some community in Florida Swan Hills, Alberta

Ten communities wished to continue further negotiations Four communities did not wish to continue further negotiations

Two facilities sited Four facilities sited but opposed Seven facilities not sited Facility not sited

Facility sited

Facility sited

Facility sited

Facility sited Facility sited

Facilities sited

Facility sited

In the siting process

Facilities sited

Zeiss and Paddon (1992)

Zeiss and Paddon (1992)

Zeiss and Atwater (1987) review O'Hare et al. (1983) Zeiss and Atwater (1987) review Centaur associates (1979)

Wall Street Journal (1991)

Wall Street Journal (1991)

Wall Street Journal (1991) Wall Street Journal (1991)

Matheny and Williams (1985) McQuaid-Cook and Simons (1989) Nieves et al. (1992)

Lynn (1987)

Need justification only

Impact management only

Benefits, compensation, and incentives only

Process management only

Need identification and Impact management

Need identification and Incentives

Need identification and Process management

Impact management and Process management

Impact management and Process management

1

2

3

4

1 2

1 3

1 4

2 3

2 4

None

Siting Measures

2

3

None

None

None

None

None

(46)-(49) requested 2 + 3 + 4 4

(2) requested l + 2 + 3 + 4 (37) requested 1 + 4 (53) 3

(1),(6) requested 1 + 2 + 3 + 4

None

(50)-(52) requested 2 + 3 + 4

Not Sited Negative Outcome

TABLE 3. Frequency of Combinations of Measures

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

In the Siting Process Unknown Outcome

None

None

None

None

None

None

(44),(45) sited but opposed (35),(38)

None

None

None

Sited Positive Outcome

4

t~

t-

r-

7r

N

oo

Need identification and Impact management and Incentives

Need identification and Impact management and Process management

Need identification and Incentives and Process management

Impact management and Incentives and Process management

Need identification and Impact management and Incentives and Process management

1 2 3

1 2 4

1 3 4

2 3 4

! 2 3 4 (64)-(67)

None

None

None

None

None

(8)

(12),(7)

None

None

None

None

(42),(43)

(10),(ll)

None

(36)

(13),(40),(54)-(63)

(3)-(5 ), (41 ), (14)-(34), (39)(9) sited but opposed

Numbers in bold face in bottom right hand designate total number of cases in which combinations were applied.

Note: Numbers in parentheses designate siting case numbers, e.g., (1).

Incentives and Process management

3 4

12

26

TABLE 4. Comparison of Siting Case Studies Type of Facility Community Specific Impacts Case study 1: Pennsylvania Low Level Nuclear Waste waste reduction and incineration facility for low-level radioactive waste some community in southwestern Pennsylvania perceived health, property value and truck traffic impacts

I n c r e a s e in Benefits Reference Bordet al. (1985)

Case study 2: Central Kemp (1992) and Central Midwest Interstate Compacts a) Central Interstate LLRW compactNebraska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Louisiana some community in Nebraska impacts not specified

b) Central Midwest Interstate LLRW compact- Illinois and Kentucky some community in Illinois presently in the siting process impacts not specified

Case study 3: Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility in Alberta hazardous waste treatment and storage facility Swan Hills, Alberta-small rural town impacts not specified

Kemp (1992)

McQuaid-Cook and Simons (1989)

Need Definition

Impact

Reduction

none

did not give additional impact reduction measures

none

design change to address concern for radionucleide migration-shallow land repository to an above ground, engineered facility monitoring system for the protection of the groundwater continuing for 100 years post closure

none

engineered facility for incinerated, compacted, and packaged waste site must have homogeneous geology and is concern for groundwater migration overdesign safety system permanent monitoring of the site inspection of the waste prior to disposal computerized waste tracking system to ensure safe transport and minimize illegal dumping emphasis on water table level and quality of agricultural land affected monitoring of local health

intensive public participation program to inform people of the hazardous waste problem and the necessity for treatment and disposal facility

Ancilliary Benefits jobs and revenue considered to be insufficient

increased local integrated treatment: incineration, physical/ employment, construcchemical treatment, tion of new homes, stabilization, landfill increased tax base, upgraded local and deepweU disposal utilities, improvedesigned for total containment ments to tourism overall improvment to strict safety standards, Alberta's environment, various operating and polution control repotential increase in quirements, ongoing economic diversification, environmental moniattraction of industries toring program to province as their waste will he properly dealt with.

T A B L E 4. C o n t i n u e d Increase in Benefits

Compensation

Incentives

Process Management

Sequencing

Siting Outcome facility not sited

compensation for losses in property value

$2M in revenue from operations

each state will take 30-year turns to assure equity statewide citizens' advisory committee established League of Women Voters assisted in local public educational campaign about wastes, risk communities asked if they were willing to host site--21 counties and 54 communities said yes local monitoring committees to oversee the work and provide public information governor then backed away from the responsibility and left the naive monitoring committees opposition regarding the actual voluntariness of siting, site selection based on path of least political resistance, managerial capabilities of monitoring committees

process management with impact reduction ongoing process management and some compensation

facility sited but opposed

range of compensation measures under consideration all compensation measures justified in terms of local need up to $2M available in total compensation to farmers for disruption during site characterization guarantee farmland prices and property values state may buy land and lease to operator provision of emergency vehicles and training

all incentive measures justified in terms of local need educational bursaries for local children

technical advisory committee to assist a 16-member citizens' advisory group with representatives from generators, environmental interests, local citizens and two facilitators to examine siting and technical issues entire state had hydrogeological investigations, voluntary process draft siting plan publicized and discussed at public meetings eight sites found to be feasible, focused additional characterization on one site money available for independent evaluation of site and facility county giving strong opposition local oversight of operations on-site inspectors with shut-down power held by state

process management with impact reduction, assuring future ongoing process management, compensation and incentives

siting still in process

donations supporting cultural, educational and recreational activities donations to improve local services and beautify the town

entire province considered except environmentally unfeasible, voluntary participation, all information made available, ongoing liaison, extensive educational presentations with all questions answered openly.

need definition, and process management coincident with risk reduction and increase in benefits

facility sited

172

CHRIS ZEISS AND LIANNE LEFSRUD

A technical advisory committee was formed to assist a citizens' advisory group. The group consisted of representatives from waste generators, local citizens, and environmental interest groups with two facilitators to examine technical and siting issues. The facility was engineered facility for containment of incinerated, compacted and packaged waste with an overdesigned safety system. A range of compensation and incentive measures were under consideration, each measure being justified in terms of local need with up to $2 million available to the host community. The entire state was characterized, and the siting process was voluntary. Eight sites were found to be technically feasible and additional characterization was focused on one site. The draft siting plan was publicized and discussed at public meetings. The county is now giving strong opposition, and the siting attempt is still in process.

Case Study 3: Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility in Alberta (McQuaid-Cook and Simons 1989) To site a hazardous waste treatment centre in Alberta, a comprehensive approach was taken to address environmental and social issues. Strong need definition was completed to make the entire province aware of the need for the facility. All information was made available from the outset with complete public participation in a voluntary process. The entire province was considered with consistent siting criteria to exclude the technically unfeasible sites. Strict safety criteria and a philosophy of complete containment minimized negative impacts. The facility carried with it significant ancillary benefits to the town and to the Province in general. The host community voted in favor of the facility with a majority of 75°70.

Summary of Case Study Findings Bord et al. (1985) report that the low-level radioactive waste facility had perceived health, property value, and traffic effects, but the proponents only report ancillary benefits (jobs) as an offsetting component of the siting package, although impact reduction measures were requested by the community to address the other effects. As predicted, the siting attempt failed. The two ambiguous cases (Central Interstate Compact and Central Midwest Interstate Compact) combined relevant impact reduction measures with substantial compensation as property value guarantees and locally justified the need for compensation. Both invested effort to identify the problems with current hazardous waste disposal and storage and to compare available technical options through intensive community involvement efforts before focusing on several sites. Local need identification led to two host communities, which both identified the facility as a way to maintain their community and lifestyle. Impact management, anciqary benefits, and incentives were then suf-

DEVELOPING HOST COMMUNITY SITING PACKAGES FOR WASTE FACILITIES

173

ficient for successful siting. The facility, therefore, was seen as a way to reduce the potential loss. In addition, significant efforts were made to ensure host community control, monitoring, oversight, and equity. Some success was noted as one facility sited by opposed and one siting still in process. Substantially improved outcomes were achieved by using, in the prescribed sequence, community involvement with targeted impact reduction and compensation. The successful case of a hazardous waste treatment facility (McQuaid-Cook and Simons 1989), and the subsequent expansion o f this same facility in 1992, resulting from a downturn in the oil economy. Thus, the facility was framed to meet a local need to preserve the community through economic stability.

Findings, Conclusions, and Discussion 1. Need Identification-The need for the proposed facility is often not explicitly addressed from the societal or community perspective. The literature findings, however, strongly emphasize this requirement in order to demonstrate the improvement of environmental quality (or other attributes) over the status quo through the performance of the facility as waste management, treatment, disposal etc. A r m o u r (1991), for example identifies that some lowlevel radioactive wastes are informally disposed of in municipal landfill sites, ravines and on vacant lands in communities. In both Alberta studies (McQuaidC o o k and Simons 1989; Zeiss and Paddon 1992) need identification for the host community perspective was emphasized. In Swan Hills, the facility was seen to address (i.e., reduce) the threat of economic loss and even community extinction after the oil field recession in 1982. In the smaller transfer station volunteer communities (Zeiss and Paddon 1992), the facilities were linked to the collection and removal o f hazardous products currently disposed of in local landfills and sewers. Further, in the Swan Hills expansion in 1989-1990, the need for the expansion was demonstrated with an inventory study of accumulated hazardous waste materials and estimates of additionally generated materials shown as multiples of volumes of the Edmonton Ice Hockey Coliseum required for storage, and by color pictures in the newspapers of hazardous waste barrels stacked in warehouses. In other words, the facilities were framed as means to reduce currently occurring losses in the communities. Although there is, of course, the concern that the need identification may increase risk perception of the status quo, the consensus of a need to take action to move beyond the status quo is considered an important first component of siting negotiations. Need definition might pertain to nonenvironmental attributes of a host community, such as maintaining current community character with the facility's type of employment, support for a local industry, reduction of a problem stem-

174

CHRIS ZEISS AND LIANNE LEFSRUD

ruing from a locally desirable or existing industry, reduction or offsetting of an expected economic recession, etc. How effective the achievement of better conditions elsewhere (i.e., in source communities or communities affected by poor disposal) is effective in achieving host community acceptance has not been reported. However, altruism has been reported elsewhere as a motive for actions related to environmental improvements (Hopper and Nielson 1991). Furthermore, the recent expansion o f the Swan Hills Hazardous Waste Treatment facility was preceded by the discussion of the need to dispose of stored wastes and the discussion of technology choice (incineration over waste elimination and other novel techniques). Although it is recognized that need definition may not be politically expedient or technically easy in the case of low level radioactive waste (LLRW), careful need identification from the host community's perspective has been shown to be effective and necessary in other siting negotiations. 2. Choice of Technology and S i t e - The community's right to be involved in selection of technology, impact management, and mitigation measures is well documented and should be exercised in the first phases of the process. Presumably, the selected options reflect the community's preferences. This important principle may be more effective if the technology and the site can be shown to be "the best possible" (Easterling 1992) to persuade the community that the facility indeed best addresses the problem and most improves the (unacceptable) status quo. The demonstration of technical optimality indicates to host communities that they are not being strategically chosen because they may offer the least political resistance (Kraft and Clary 1991). The detailed comparison o f technical options, site characteristics and environmental impacts for several sites, including the existing facility's should be used to evaluate and demonstrate the proposed selection. This was conducted and presented for the expansion of the Swan Hills hazardous waste facility (Chem Security Ltd. 1991). 3. Waste Stream Control- Where waste streams may contain particularly hazardous materials (high-level waste, hazardous materials, etc.) that may stem from other source or catchment areas or may change in the future, limitations or controls can be placed on waste quantities, sources, and types. Waste stream or facility expansion controls were not specifically mentioned in many articles. Although it is not certain whether this principle is feasible or relevant for some waste facilities, it might be explored in order to prevent effects that would be more difficult to manage. Specific exclusions of certain wastes (e,g. PCBs, radioactive materials, etc.) have been used and noted for hazardous waste facilities (Centaur Assoc. 1979), Wisconsin siting cases (Nieves et al. 1992), and Alberta transfer stations (Zeiss and Paddon 1992). 4. lmpact Reduction and Management--Three key principles identified in the literature research might further strengthen the impact reduction components:

DEVELOPING HOST COMMUNITY SITING PACKAGES FOR WASTE FACILITIES

a)

b)

c)

.

175

Measures that prevent impacts or control effects prior to causing damage are preferred over mitigation and remediation; therefore, preventive and engineering control measures should be emphasized and discussed before mitigation and compensation. Some evidence indicates that aesthetic or nuisance effects can trigger more serious concerns about community image, health risks, etc. As a result, it may be effective to emphasize measures that will prevent odor, noise, view and other obvious effects. Careful prediction of impact footprints and the need and effectiveness of impact reduction measures will provide the basis for proportional compensation of any residual effects.

Benefits, Compensation, and Other Incentives Ancillary benefits of local jobs, employment training, economic diversification, local business, upgraded local utilities are identified in the many studies and can likely be well identified and discussed. b) Compensation measures have also been discussed. An important principle in negotiating compensation consists of specifically identifying local need, purpose, structure, and implementation of compensation measures, particularly of monies, in order to avoid the connotation of bribes and, secondly, to avoid creating additional inequities among host community groups or residents. Therefore, according to this finding, a rationale should be developed for each effect and compensation measure. Impact footprints and distancedecay functions for each effect and compensation measure. Impact footprints and distance-decay functions for each type of impacts would be a basis to identify relative magnitude of impact. Then, compensation programs could then be tailored to proportionally address impact levels. c) Incentives as cash, grants, royalties, tipping fees, etc. often called equity benefits, are intended to ensure that the host community is better off than it was previously. To this purpose, these benefits are less clearly tied to the facility effects and may be more easily perceived as bribes and should be carefully rationalized and structured. Additional incentives and compensation measures are best negotiated after impact management, mitigation and remediation. d) Other incentives such as the structuring and clarification of the negotiation principles and process are suggested by the literature and are recommended early in the siting process. a)

Conclusions There appears to be strong potential for improving waste facility siting packages by introducing, at the front end of the negotiation process, strong societal and local need identification, technology, and site selection for optimal

176

CHRIS ZEISS A N D LIANNE LEFSRUD

c o n d i t i o n s a n d waste stream controls. These measures can be integrated with frequently applied process m a n a g e m e n t , i m p a c t reduction, a n d c o m p e n s a t i o n into more successful a n d effective siting agreements.

The research was made possible by a contract from the Low Level Radioactive Waste Siting Task Force Secretariat. The opportunity is gratefully acknowledged. The comments in this article are for information and discussion purposes only and are not to be relied upon in any particular situation with the expressed written consent of the authors.

References Armour, A.M. 1991. The siting of locally unwanted land uses: Towards a cooperative approach. Progress in Planning 35:1. Bacow, L.S., and Milkey, J.R. 1982. Overcoming local opposition to hazardous waste facilities: The Massachusetts approach. Harvard Environmental Law Review 6:265. Bord, R.J., Ponzurick, P.J., and Witzig, W.E 1985. Community response to low-level radioactive waste: A case study of an attempt to establish a waste reduction and incineration facility. IEEE 7?ansaction on Nuclear Science NS-32(6):4466. Camerer, C.E, and Kunreuther, H. 1989. Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications. Policy Sciences 8(4):565. Carlson, K.A. 1991. What happens and what counts: Resident assessments of prison impacts on their communities. Hulboldt Journal of Social Relations 17(1&2):211. Carnes, S.A., Copenhaver, E.D., Soderstrom, E.J., Sorensen, J., Peelle, E., Reed, J.H., and Bjornstad, D.J. 1983. Incentives and nuclear waste siting: Prospects and constraints. Energy Systems and Policy 7(4):323. Carter, L.J. 1987. Siting the nuclear waste repository: Last stand at Yucca Mountain. Environment 29(8):8. Centaur Associates. 1979. Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition. Report SW809, USEPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D.C. Chem Security Ltd. 1991. Environmental impact assessment-Proposed expansion of the Alberta special waste treatment centre. Vol. I I - Main Report, Calgary, Alberta. Chem-Security (Alberta) Ltd. Davis, C. 1984. Substance and Procedure in hazardous waste facility siting. Journal of Environmental Systems 14(1):51. Davis, C. 1985. Public involvement in hazardous waste siting decisions. Polity 19:296. Dorius, N. 1993. Land use negotiation: Reducing conflict and creating wanted land uses. Journal of the American Planning Association 59(1):101. Duberg, J.A., Frankel, M.L., and Niemszewski, C.M. 1980. Siting of hazardous waste management facilities and public opposition. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1(1):84. Easterling, D. 1992. Fair rules for siting a high-level nuclear waste repository. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 11(3):442.

DEVELOPING HOST COMMUNITY SITING PACKAGES FOR WASTE FACILITIES

177

Elliott, M.L.P. 1984. Improving community acceptance of hazardous waste facilities through alternative systems for mitigating and managing risk. Hazardous Waste 1(3):397. Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C.K., and Slovic, P. 1992. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis 12(3):417. Greenberg, M.R., Anderson, R.R., and Rosenberger, K. 1984. Social and economic effects of hazardous waste management sites. Hazardous Waste 1(3):387. Gregory, R., and Kunreuther, H. 1990. Successful siting incentives. Civil Engineering (April):73. Gregory, R., Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., and Richards, K. 1991. Incentives policies to site hazardous waste facilities. Risk Analysis 11(4):667. Hadden, S.G. 1991. Public perception of hazardous waste. Risk Analysis 11(1):47. Himmelberger, J.J., Ratick, S.J., and White, A.L. 1991. Compensation for risks: Host community benefits in siting locally unwanted facilities. Environmental Management 15(5):647. Hopper, J.R., and Nielson, J.M. 1991. Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior 23(2):195. Inhaber, H. 1991. A Market-based solution to the problem of nuclear and toxic waste disposal. Journal Air and Waste Management Association 41(6):808. Jaffe, M. 1991. Comments on public perception of hazardous waste. Risk Analysis 11(1):59. Johnson, B.B. 1987. Public concerns and the public role in siting nuclear and chemical waste facilities. Environmental Management 11(5):571. Kemp, R. 1992. The Politics o f Radioactive Waste Disposal. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press. Kraft, M.E., and Clary, B.B. 1991. Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. The Western Political Quarterly 44:299. Kunreuther, H., Easterling, D., Desvousges, W., and Slovic, P. 1990. Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis 18(4):469. Lynn, EM. 1987. Citizen involvement in hazardous waste sites: Two North Carolina success stories. Environmental Impact Assessment 7:347. Mank, B.C. 1991. The two-headed dragon of siting and cleaning up hazardous waste dumps: Can economic incentives or mediation slay the monster? Environmental Affairs 19:239. Matheny, A.R., and Williams, B.A. 1985. Knowledge vs. NIMBY: Assessing Florida's strategy for siting hazardous waste disposal facilities. Policy Studies Journal 14(1):70. McClelland, G.H., Schulze, W.D., and Hurd, B. 1990. The effect of risk beliefs on property values: A case study of a hazardous waste site. Risk Analysis 10(4):485. McQuaid-Cook, J., and Simons, C.S. 1989. Development and operation of a waste management system in Alberta, Canada. Water Management and Research 7:219.

178

CHRIS ZEISS A N D LIANNE LEFSRUD

National Facility Siting Credo. 1990. H. Kunentuer and L. Susskind (eds.), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Nieves, L.A., Himmelberger, J.J., Ratick, S.L., and White, A.L. 1992. Negotiated compensation for solid-waste disposal facility siting: An analysis of the Wisconsin experience. Risk Analysis 12(4):505. O'Hare, M., Bacow, L., and Sanderson, D. 1983. Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. O'Sullivan, A. 1993. Voluntary auctions for noxious facilities: Incentives to participate and the efficiency of siting decisions. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25:S12. Portney, K.E. 1991. Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities-The NIMBY Syndrome. New York: Auburn House. Smail, H.E. 1985. Solid Waste Facility Siting- Community Aspects and Incentives, Management of Toxic and Hazardous Wastes. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers. Thaler, R. 1985. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Market Science 4(3):199-206. Vari, A., Kemp, R., and Mumpower, J.L. 1991. Public concerns about LLRW facility siting. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22(1):83. Wall Street Journal. 1991. Economics of trash. Dec. 3, 1991, A1 + 9. Zeiss, C. 1988. Waste facility impacts and host community acceptance. Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia, August 1988, 712 pages. Zeiss, C. 1991. Community decision-making and impact management priorities for siting waste facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11:231. Zeiss, C., and Atwater, J. 1991. Waste disposal facilities and community response. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 18:83-96. Zeiss, C., and Paddon, B. 1992. Management principles for negotiating siting agreements: A case study of siting hazardous waste transfer stations in Alberta. Journal Air and Waste Management Association 42(10):1296-1304. Zeiss, C., and Atwater, J. 1987. Waste facilities in residential communities: Impacts and acceptance. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 113(1):19.