- Email: [email protected]
Handbooks for siting hazardous waste management facilities in New England
penditure such as operations and maintenance and the treatment of stormwater runoff was not related to the level of support for public expenditures in general. The level of support for citizen cleanup efforts and the degree of effectiveness of individual efforts as a solution to pollution control were related. Fifty-two percent of all respondents both strongly supported citizen efforts and felt that these efforts were either moderately or very effective solutions to water quality problems. The level of support for the use of land use controls and the degree of effectiveness of land use and growth controls were somewhat related. Fifty-six percent of the respondents both strongly supported land use controls and felt that such controls were either moderately or very effective solutions to water pollution control. Other relationships were also evident. The degree of effectiveness of sewage treatment plant construction as a solution to water quality problems was related to the degree of effectiveness of operation and maintenance improvements. The support for industrial expenditures and the support for citizen cleanup efforts or public expenditures were not related. Support for citizen efforts in pollution control did not necessarily imply support for water conservation measures. Almost two-thirds of the citizens strongly supporting citizen efforts as solutions to water pollution control felt that water conservation was either not an appropriate solution to water pollution control or was only slightly effective. P CONCLUSIONS Overall the findings showed that the attitudes of a highly environmentally conscious group o f New York City citizens on water way usage and the level of water quality desired diverged from those of public agencies responsible for pollution control in the city as well as from the formal public representative, the Citizens Advisory Committee. In choosing implementation strategies, Environmental
Impact
Assessment Review, V . 1 , N . 3
o~gs.g2ss/ao/ogoooa~gsoa.oo/o ~'**~
~' . . . . .
P*lhlich!nG
Corporatlon
however, the responding group often did not diverge from positions expressed in available " 2 0 8 " planning documents and policy statements, especially in the areas of favoring more industrial controls and not emphasizing water conservation. For more information contact: Rae Zimmerman Director, Public Policy Research Institute Graduate School of Public Administration New York University 4 Washington Square North New York, New York 10003 Phone (212) 598-3725
Handbooks for Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in New England Peter Clark and Julia Wondolleck
Three hundred million gallons o f hazardous waste are generated annually by 4,500 firms throughout New England. The critical question facing New England today is What to do with these wastes. In an attempt to address this question, the New England Regional Commission (NERCOM) began a hazardous waste management program in 1978. NERCOM, a federal-state partnership of the six New England state governors and a federal cochairman appointed by the president, serves to maintain and improve the region's economic wellbeing. Its hazardous waste management program is directed toward encouraging facility development, strong state regulations, prompt clean-up of illegal dumps, public education, and waste reduction and recycling. The facility development project has undergone two phases.
EIA REVIEW 1/3
319
During Phase I, Arthur D. Little, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, was asked to determine an adequate system for processing the region's waste oils, solvents, chemicals, and sludge. They concluded that seventeen regional transfer stations, five to ten integrated complexes for treatment, incineration, and landfilling, and two liquid burning incinerators would be necessary, at an estimated cost of $170 million. NERCOM, however, realized that such a system stood little chance of being developed unless the public's opposition to hazardous waste facilitiesspurred in part by increasing media coverage of abandoned toxic waste d u m p s - c o u l d be overcome. Therefore, in the second phase of the project, the commission began to consider ways to increase the public's understanding of the hazardous waste problem and to involve them in the hazardous waste management facilities siting process. Toward this end, NERCOM contracted Clark-McGlennon Associates, of Boston, Massachusetts, to develop a series of h a n d b o o k s to assist state and community leaders as well as facility sponsors in the difficult process of deciding:
decisions can be made in a cooperative manner. The series provides technical inform:ition, anticipates and addresses critical questions, and describes each participant's responsibilities and approaches to satisfy their interests. TIlE tIANDBOOKS There are four titles in tile handbook series, including: 1. Criteria f o r Evaluating Sites f o r Hazardous Waste Manage. rnent 2. A n Introduction to Facilities f o r llazardous Waste Managem en t 3. A Decision Guide f o r Siting Acceptable Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in New England 4. Negotiating to Protect Your In terests I n addition, Clark-McGlennon prepared a report on "Institutional Arrangements for Developing Facilities," which includes potential legislative and regulatory provisions.
The Contents The Criteria f o r Evaluating Sites and the 9 what technologies are most suitable; Introduction to Facilities handbooks are 9 how facilities should be operated to primarily designed as primers to introminimize all risks; duce the layman to the most important 9 what procedures should be followed technical characteristics of facilities and to license a site, and b y whom; sites. There are three principal themes in 9 how to develop mitigation measures these handbooks. First, safety (defined to reduce risks and impacts; and as an acceptable degree of risk) is both 9 when to n e g o t i a t e compensation to possible and vital in newly developed hazardous waste management facilities. increase c o m m u n i t y benefits. Clark-McGlennon's experience The new facilities, it is stressed, will with environmental conflict management have nothing in common with the indishas taught them t h a t uncertainty about criminate and illegal dumping of the both the specific details of a develop- past. Second, there are a wide range of mental proposal, a n d the process by alternatives for safely handling hazar- " which decisions are made about that dous waste, including: proposal, leads to c o n f l i c t and distrust 9 selection of appropriate technology among affected i n t e r e s t groups. Conand facility types for each waste stream, using "preferred" treatment sequently, the h a n d b o o k s they designed provide a f r a m e w o r k in which siting methods first, before disposal; 9 where facilities should be sited;
320
EIA REVTEW 1/3
Rendering o f a hypothetical integrated waste management facility.
You are a local selectman or a t o w n resident and a developer has just pointed towards y o u r t o w n as a potential hazardous waste facility site. What can you do?
You are a hazardous waste facility developer and have just announced y o u r intention t o construct a facility in a particular town. Everyone has been taken by surprise. What can you do?
You are a state environmental regulatory official and you have just been informed that a developer is proposing a hazardous waste management facility in y o u r state. You realize the concerns of local residents and officials. You acknowledge the critical need for such a facility. What can you do?
The handbooks were designed to help these different groups f i n d out what
they can do when caught in these situations.
9 selection of appropriate sites for the particular technology and waste stream;
Third, the relevant information from the technical disciplines involved in hazardous waste management facility development-chemical engineering, groundwater geohydrology, and other environmental and social sciences-can and must be adequately understood by the general public so they may participate constructively in the decision-making process.
9 selection of the incoming waste stream to conform with the capabilities of each facility; and 9 utilization of appropriate "first-line" and " b a c k u p " controls, design features, and operating procedures to "overdesign" for safety.
EIA REVIEW 1/3
321
The third handbook, the De:ision Guide, was designed to help all af!ected groups participate effectively in :he three phases of the siting process. )uring the orientation phase, the proect is proposed and information about t disseminated. In the consultation ~hase, concerns are raised and issues ~coped. The identified concerns are then lddressed during the negotiation phase. Finally, tradeoffs are made by all affected participants, and agreements are 9:eached either to proceed with or reject the facility. The guide poses the most zritical questions that each interest group (community, developer, regulator) must address during a particular phase; then it suggests ways to begin answering those concerns. In addition, it discusses how to do an information search and set up a support network. If the steps outlined in the Decision Guide are followed, if the other handbooks are used, and if the appropriate questions are addressed, each group should be able to confidently make a decision. This decision might be to support or reject a proposal, to make facility changes, to institute mitigation measures, or to agree on compensation payments. But no matter what the final decision is, the proposed process should allow it to be made with a full understanding of the facility and an awareness of its consequences. The messages of the handbook,
Negotiating to Protect Your Interests, and the report on "Institutional Arrangements," focus on the procedures and concepts that may be t~seful to participants in the siting process as they explore alternatives and bargain to reach agreement on siting decisions. For example the following themes are among those running through this material: 9 In most institutional contexts, both supporters and opponents of proposed facilities may have much more to gain by staying " i n " the process than by digging in their heels and re-
322
EIA REVIEW 1/3
fusing to explore alternatives with other participants. 9 The concepts of conflict management, problem-solving, compromise, "win/win solutions," negotiation, mitigation, and compensation may suggest effective way s in which parties can protect and promote their interests in HWM facility siting. 9 A wide range of techniques, general and specific, exist to implement any party's approach for utilizing these "conflict management" concepts, including negotiation strategies, the use of third party neutrals, and innovative risk assessment approaches. The handbook also explains how to organize negotiating teams. It outlines some of the do's and don'ts of bargaining and helps each participant develop a strategy to pursue their goals while collaborating in the site decision process. APPLYING TIlE SKILLS AND INIfORMATION Once the handbooks were completed, NERCOM sponsored Clark-McGlennon to run a three day workshop to evaluate the usefulness of the Decision Guide and information handbooks. The workshop included several brief situational exercises to familiarize participants with the handbooks and the final decision process to site an incinerator and secure landfill. A simulation was used as a proxy for an actual proposal to plan, evaluate, permit, and contract a waste processing facility. The workshop, held at the University of Massachusetts, was attended by 36 participants, including community representatives, facility developers, technicians, local leaders, and state and federal regulators from the six New England states and Washington, D.C. The workshop simulation focused on a public hearing at the end of the orientation phase at which all parties-at-interest described their concerns and agreed on the issues that should be
Impact
Assessment Review, V . 1 , N . 3
o~gs.g2ss/ao/ogoooa~gsoa.oo/o ~'**~
~' . . . . .
P*lhlich!nG
Corporatlon
however, the responding group often did not diverge from positions expressed in available " 2 0 8 " planning documents and policy statements, especially in the areas of favoring more industrial controls and not emphasizing water conservation. For more information contact: Rae Zimmerman Director, Public Policy Research Institute Graduate School of Public Administration New York University 4 Washington Square North New York, New York 10003 Phone (212) 598-3725
Handbooks for Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in New England Peter Clark and Julia Wondolleck
Three hundred million gallons o f hazardous waste are generated annually by 4,500 firms throughout New England. The critical question facing New England today is What to do with these wastes. In an attempt to address this question, the New England Regional Commission (NERCOM) began a hazardous waste management program in 1978. NERCOM, a federal-state partnership of the six New England state governors and a federal cochairman appointed by the president, serves to maintain and improve the region's economic wellbeing. Its hazardous waste management program is directed toward encouraging facility development, strong state regulations, prompt clean-up of illegal dumps, public education, and waste reduction and recycling. The facility development project has undergone two phases.
EIA REVIEW 1/3
319
During Phase I, Arthur D. Little, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, was asked to determine an adequate system for processing the region's waste oils, solvents, chemicals, and sludge. They concluded that seventeen regional transfer stations, five to ten integrated complexes for treatment, incineration, and landfilling, and two liquid burning incinerators would be necessary, at an estimated cost of $170 million. NERCOM, however, realized that such a system stood little chance of being developed unless the public's opposition to hazardous waste facilitiesspurred in part by increasing media coverage of abandoned toxic waste d u m p s - c o u l d be overcome. Therefore, in the second phase of the project, the commission began to consider ways to increase the public's understanding of the hazardous waste problem and to involve them in the hazardous waste management facilities siting process. Toward this end, NERCOM contracted Clark-McGlennon Associates, of Boston, Massachusetts, to develop a series of h a n d b o o k s to assist state and community leaders as well as facility sponsors in the difficult process of deciding:
decisions can be made in a cooperative manner. The series provides technical inform:ition, anticipates and addresses critical questions, and describes each participant's responsibilities and approaches to satisfy their interests. TIlE tIANDBOOKS There are four titles in tile handbook series, including: 1. Criteria f o r Evaluating Sites f o r Hazardous Waste Manage. rnent 2. A n Introduction to Facilities f o r llazardous Waste Managem en t 3. A Decision Guide f o r Siting Acceptable Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in New England 4. Negotiating to Protect Your In terests I n addition, Clark-McGlennon prepared a report on "Institutional Arrangements for Developing Facilities," which includes potential legislative and regulatory provisions.
The Contents The Criteria f o r Evaluating Sites and the 9 what technologies are most suitable; Introduction to Facilities handbooks are 9 how facilities should be operated to primarily designed as primers to introminimize all risks; duce the layman to the most important 9 what procedures should be followed technical characteristics of facilities and to license a site, and b y whom; sites. There are three principal themes in 9 how to develop mitigation measures these handbooks. First, safety (defined to reduce risks and impacts; and as an acceptable degree of risk) is both 9 when to n e g o t i a t e compensation to possible and vital in newly developed hazardous waste management facilities. increase c o m m u n i t y benefits. Clark-McGlennon's experience The new facilities, it is stressed, will with environmental conflict management have nothing in common with the indishas taught them t h a t uncertainty about criminate and illegal dumping of the both the specific details of a develop- past. Second, there are a wide range of mental proposal, a n d the process by alternatives for safely handling hazar- " which decisions are made about that dous waste, including: proposal, leads to c o n f l i c t and distrust 9 selection of appropriate technology among affected i n t e r e s t groups. Conand facility types for each waste stream, using "preferred" treatment sequently, the h a n d b o o k s they designed provide a f r a m e w o r k in which siting methods first, before disposal; 9 where facilities should be sited;
320
EIA REVTEW 1/3
Rendering o f a hypothetical integrated waste management facility.
You are a local selectman or a t o w n resident and a developer has just pointed towards y o u r t o w n as a potential hazardous waste facility site. What can you do?
You are a hazardous waste facility developer and have just announced y o u r intention t o construct a facility in a particular town. Everyone has been taken by surprise. What can you do?
You are a state environmental regulatory official and you have just been informed that a developer is proposing a hazardous waste management facility in y o u r state. You realize the concerns of local residents and officials. You acknowledge the critical need for such a facility. What can you do?
The handbooks were designed to help these different groups f i n d out what
they can do when caught in these situations.
9 selection of appropriate sites for the particular technology and waste stream;
Third, the relevant information from the technical disciplines involved in hazardous waste management facility development-chemical engineering, groundwater geohydrology, and other environmental and social sciences-can and must be adequately understood by the general public so they may participate constructively in the decision-making process.
9 selection of the incoming waste stream to conform with the capabilities of each facility; and 9 utilization of appropriate "first-line" and " b a c k u p " controls, design features, and operating procedures to "overdesign" for safety.
EIA REVIEW 1/3
321
The third handbook, the De:ision Guide, was designed to help all af!ected groups participate effectively in :he three phases of the siting process. )uring the orientation phase, the proect is proposed and information about t disseminated. In the consultation ~hase, concerns are raised and issues ~coped. The identified concerns are then lddressed during the negotiation phase. Finally, tradeoffs are made by all affected participants, and agreements are 9:eached either to proceed with or reject the facility. The guide poses the most zritical questions that each interest group (community, developer, regulator) must address during a particular phase; then it suggests ways to begin answering those concerns. In addition, it discusses how to do an information search and set up a support network. If the steps outlined in the Decision Guide are followed, if the other handbooks are used, and if the appropriate questions are addressed, each group should be able to confidently make a decision. This decision might be to support or reject a proposal, to make facility changes, to institute mitigation measures, or to agree on compensation payments. But no matter what the final decision is, the proposed process should allow it to be made with a full understanding of the facility and an awareness of its consequences. The messages of the handbook,
Negotiating to Protect Your Interests, and the report on "Institutional Arrangements," focus on the procedures and concepts that may be t~seful to participants in the siting process as they explore alternatives and bargain to reach agreement on siting decisions. For example the following themes are among those running through this material: 9 In most institutional contexts, both supporters and opponents of proposed facilities may have much more to gain by staying " i n " the process than by digging in their heels and re-
322
EIA REVIEW 1/3
fusing to explore alternatives with other participants. 9 The concepts of conflict management, problem-solving, compromise, "win/win solutions," negotiation, mitigation, and compensation may suggest effective way s in which parties can protect and promote their interests in HWM facility siting. 9 A wide range of techniques, general and specific, exist to implement any party's approach for utilizing these "conflict management" concepts, including negotiation strategies, the use of third party neutrals, and innovative risk assessment approaches. The handbook also explains how to organize negotiating teams. It outlines some of the do's and don'ts of bargaining and helps each participant develop a strategy to pursue their goals while collaborating in the site decision process. APPLYING TIlE SKILLS AND INIfORMATION Once the handbooks were completed, NERCOM sponsored Clark-McGlennon to run a three day workshop to evaluate the usefulness of the Decision Guide and information handbooks. The workshop included several brief situational exercises to familiarize participants with the handbooks and the final decision process to site an incinerator and secure landfill. A simulation was used as a proxy for an actual proposal to plan, evaluate, permit, and contract a waste processing facility. The workshop, held at the University of Massachusetts, was attended by 36 participants, including community representatives, facility developers, technicians, local leaders, and state and federal regulators from the six New England states and Washington, D.C. The workshop simulation focused on a public hearing at the end of the orientation phase at which all parties-at-interest described their concerns and agreed on the issues that should be