Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITING: COMMUNITY, FIRM, AND 131 GOVERNMENTAL PERSPECTIVES original typesetting files. Page breaks are true to the original; line lengths, word breaks, heading styles, and other typesetting-specific formatting, however, cannot be About this PDF file: This new digital representation of the original work has been recomposed from XML files created from the original paper book, not from the retained, and some typographic errors may have been accidentally inserted. Please use the print version of this publication as the authoritative version for attribution. revealed that a significant source of concern among respondents was that they could not trust the management of companies that operate waste treatment facilities or government regulators who oversee them or that proper procedures would be followed (Portney, 1983, p. 36). In view of these data, it is not surprising that the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (1982, p. 231) has concluded that "the greatest single obstacle that a successful waste management program must overcome is the severe erosion of public confidence in the Federal Government." The lack of credibility is probably even more profound for a private developer and potential operator of a disposal site. Communicating Risk to the Public 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. Fashioning effective ways of communicating uncertain risks, especially when they involve low-probability events or chronic exposures, is obviously difficult. The distrust of institutions responsible for providing the information and the emotions surrounding risk imposition add significantly to the problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently observed that its handling of the ethylene dibromide (EDB) controversy was hamstrung by difficulties in communicating with the public and local officials. The difficulty of risk communication on hazardous wastes has been an evident problem in all recent siting efforts. Adding to the difficulty is the limited current understanding of how best to convey risk information. Officials of regulatory agencies have frequently alluded to the difficulty in conveying the rationale for standard setting to members of Congress who seek unambiguous statements as to whether a technology is "safe" or not. Most individuals have difficulty interpreting probability statements or comparing familiar risks with those of rare occurrences and serious consequences. Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein (1980) have pointed out that a fault-tree design to elucidate the small probability of risk may instead impress the observer with the large number of potential things that can go wrong. Finally, at prospective hazardous waste sites, learning about risk occurs not in isolated individuals but in a social dynamic, with multiple sources of information, channels of information flow, confirmatory and challenging mechanisms, and linkage with other social issues. Many kinds of information users will be present (O'Hare, 1980). Obviously, much fuller understanding is needed of the credible means by which to increase knowledge and to engage in constructive communication in such community contexts.
