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 141 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. dination would avoid the danger of subsystem optimization (as may be occurring with the repository focus in high-level radioactive wastes). Institutional opportunities exist to enlarge the role of risk bearers in assuring their own protection. Local impact-assessment committees can participate directly in the identification of relevant impacts, advice as to how they should be weighted, and strategies for avoiding and mitigating them. A formal local capability to monitor the facility and any potential releases linked to a means for corrective action can provide improved assurance of long-term health protection. Similarly, a direct local role in the design of the facility is a more appropriate sharing of authority than one centered on the siting decision. Postclosure trust funds can be developed to pay judgments arising from future harms caused by a facility owner or operator who is judgment-proof or otherwise not amenable to suit (Baram, 1982, p. 215). Risk Sharing Several systems designs and institutional options exist for achieving a wider sharing of risk among the beneficiaries. First, the size and number of facilities can be altered to conform to a general plan of equity. Whereas a large, multipurpose facility for hazardous waste treatment may have economies of scale, several smaller, limited-purpose facilities may provide enhanced equity opportunities. Second, facilities may be regionally sited to make visible that all benefiting areas will share in the risk. Such siting strategies may also reduce the costs and risks of the waste transportation system. Finally, the siting strategy may also be arranged so that facilities begin operations simultaneously (rather than staggered, as in the high-level radioactive waste program). Deploying the overall waste system, of course, requires centralized planning but may be designed so that the network of facilities visibly demonstrates that each area will be expected to share in the waste burdens and risks (Morell, 1984). The Role of Compensation To conform to the definition of the problem and to the ethical principles enumerated in the previous section, compensation would function as a means of providing distributional equity. Compensation should not, however, be the preferred approach to risk management because of the higher-order responsibility to avoid harm. Rather, it should be employed after risks have been reduced as much as possible. It is also essential to recognize explicitly that compensation levels are difficult to establish at the time of facility development because effects often cannot be predicted, many effects are qualitative and difficult to mea
