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 132 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. Problem and Institutional Mismatch The final portion of the siting problem relates to the mismatch between the geography of the waste management problem and the pattern of institutions that deal with it. Hazardous wastes, both radiological and nonradiological, are by any standard a national problem. Waste sources are distributed throughout the nation, the flow of waste products is national, and the health of the associated industries and services represents a national public interest. But the waste sites, of course, occur in specific localities. It is a situation found in other pervasive problemsâsuch as the difficulty in managing the political economy and public service structure of fragmented metropolitan areasâwhich ensures intergovernmental conflict. Despite the national stake in the problem, differing volumes of specific waste and the number of sites needed have shaped different approaches to siting. Thus, facility siting for hazardous nonradiological waste, and the associated need for many sites, has been left to the states, and the federal role has been largely limited to health and safety regulations. Low-level radioactive wastes, by contrast, with a need for a handful of sites, are officially defined as a state responsibility, although a regional approach clearly is favored. High-level radioactive wastes, involving a few sites and military considerations have produced a federal siting program. Yet the underlying problem of siting is the same: a need for coordination is apparent, and the overall ability to deliver needed sites is very much in doubt. The mismatch between problem and institutional structure affords numerous opportunities for stalemating siting efforts. Whereas the federal Constitution allocates to the states responsibility for controlling nonfederal lands (thereby making federally based siting programs difficult), the states have in turn delegated much of that responsibility to local communities (thereby impeding state-based siting approaches). Determined local opposition thus has political tradition and a wealth of institutional opportunity for resisting an unwanted land use in its territory. The local police power can be employed in numerous ways, such as a town's amending the maximum weight limit on a bridge maintained by the town in order to limit truck access to a site (Bacow and Milkey, 1982, p. 273). Local opponents can also seek litigation for any preemption statute or seek judicial review of permit decisions under state and federal laws. Requirements for public participation or information provide opportunities to challenge decisions. States can resist federal programs through restrictions placed on waste transportation. Finally, all lower levels of government can resort to political challenge (as through legislation to exempt certain potential sites) to resist higher authority. Although all such challenges may ultimately fail, the delay and obstacles created may force potential developers to seek other sites.
