Hazards: Technology and Fairness (1986)

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 142 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. sure, and it is difficult to assign values to human or environmental harm. Compensation should, in the view advanced here, be assigned by central authority through standardized procedures applied equally to all cases and should provide assurance that uncertainty and unforeseen events will not go uncompensated. Risk Compensation and Public Participation The last set of policy tools relates to ethical principle 4, making the assumption of risk as voluntary as reasonably achieveable. In fact, we do not know how best to do this, and programs need to be designed as research and demonstration efforts, with a substantial commitment of funds and command of expertise. It is not, as is assumed in the current multimillion-dollar "public information program" of the Atomic Industrial Forum, a public relations task. A sound approach will recognize that the developer has a conflict of interest in risk communication, so that risk and project communication may need to be vested in a more independent source (for example, the League of Women Voters), and that effective communication must take account of the social dynamic of how a community considers and debates the facility. A key objective of compensation arrangements should be the creation of a local technical advisory body, perhaps modeled after the successful Technical Advisory Committee to the Governor of New Mexico in the case of the siting of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in that state. The paradigm outlined in this final section does not guarantee success, of course. If success were easy, this would not be such a tough policy problem. But in the face of growing evidence that current wisdom is failing, new approaches are needed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to Jeanne X. Kasperson and John Lundblad for comments and suggestions. I have also benefited from long-standing collaborative work on equity problems with risk with my additional colleagues, Patrick Derr, Robert Goble, Dominic Golding, Robert W. Kates, and Mary Melville. References Bacow, L., and J. R. Milkey. 1982. Overcoming local opposition to hazardous waste facilities: The Massachusetts approach. Harvard Environmental Law Review 6(2):265–305. Bacow, L. S., and J. R. Milkey. 1983. Responding to local opposition to hazardous waste facilities: The Massachusetts approach. Resolve (Winter/ Spring):3–8. Baram, M. S. 1982. Alternatives to Regulation. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITING: COMMUNITY, FIRM, AND 143 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. Greenberg, M. R., R. F. Anderson, and K. Rosenberger. 1984. Social and economic effects of hazardous waste management sites. Hazardous Waste 1 (Fall):387–396. Harris and Associates. 1976. A Second Survey of Public and Leadership Attitudes Toward Nuclear Power Development in the United States. Summary, New York: Ebasco Services. Hohenemser, C., R. W. Kates, and P. Slovic. 1983. The nature of technological hazard. Science 220 (22 April):378–384. Jensen, W. B. 1984. Planning a major hazardous waste incineration facility in Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Operating European Centralized Hazardous (Chemical) Waste Management Facilities, Odense, Denmark. September. Kasperson, R. E., ed. 1983. Equity Issues in Radioactive Waste Management. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain. Kasperson, R. E., and B. L. Rubin. 1983. Siting a radioactive waste respository: What role for equity? Pp. 118–136 in Equity Issues in Radioactive Waste Management, R. E. Kasperson, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain. Kasperson, R. E., P. Derr, and R. W. Kates. 1983. Confronting equity in radioactive waste management: Modest proposals for a socially just and acceptable program. Pp. 331–368 in Equity Issues in Radioactive Waste Management, R. E. Kasperson, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain. Kates, R. W., and B. Braine. 1983. Locus, equity, and the West Valley nuclear wastes. Pp. 94–117 in Equity in Radioactive Waste Management, R. E. Kasperson, ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain. Kelly, J. E. 1980. Testimony on behalf of the State of Wisconsin regarding the Statement of Position of the United States Department of Energy in the Matter of the Proposed Rulemaking on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Wastes. Docket No. PR50–51. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D.C. Kunreuther, H., J. Linnerooth, and J. W. Vaupel. 1984. A decision-process perspective on risk and policy analysis. Management Science 30(April):475–485. Lee, K. N. 1980. A federalistic strategy for nuclear waste management. Science 208(16 May):679– 684. Lindell, M. K, and T. C. Earle. 1983. How close is close enough: Public perceptions of the risks of industrial facilities. Risk Analysis 3(4):245–253. Lipsky, M. 1968. Protest as a political resource. American Political Science Review 62:1144–1158. Morell, D. 1984. Siting and the politics of equity. Hazardous Waste 1(4):555–571. Murdock, S. H., F. L. Leistritz, and R. R. Hamm, eds. 1983. Nuclear Waste: Socioeconomic Dimensions of Long-Term Storage. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. National Governors' Association. 1981. Siting hazardous waste facilities. The Environmental Professional 3:133–142. National Research Council. 1984. Social and Economic Aspects of Radioactive Waste Disposal. Board on Radioactive Waste Management. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Research Council. 1985. Reducing Hazardous Waste Generation: An Evaluation and A Call for Action. Environmental Studies Board. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. O'Hare, M. 1980. Improving the use of information in environmental decision making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1 (September): 229–250. O'Hare, M., L. Bacow, and D. Sanderson. 1983. Facility Siting and Public Opposition. New York: Van Nostrand. Popper, F. J. 1983. LP/HC and LULUs: The political uses of risk analysis in land use planning. Risk Analysis 3(4):255–263. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY SITING: COMMUNITY, FIRM, AND 144 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. Portney, K. E. 1983. Citizen attitudes toward hazardous waste facility siting: Public opinion in five Massachusetts communities. Medford, Mass.: Tufts University, Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship Public Affairs. Mimeo. Raiffa, H. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Schwartz, S. P., P. E. White, and R. G. Hughes. 1985. Environmental threats, communities, and hysteria. Journal of Public Health Policy 6(1):58–77. Seley, J. E. 1983. The Politics of Public-Facility Planning. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books. Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1980. Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. Pp. 181–216 in Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe is Safe Enough? R. C. Schwing and W. A. Albers, eds. New York: Plenum. Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. 1982. Rating the risks: The structure of expert and lay perceptions. Pp. 141–166 in Risk in the Technological Society. C. Hohenemser and J. X. Kasperson, eds. AAAS Selected Symposium 65. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. 1983. Technologies and Management Strategies for Hazardous Waste Control. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 1980. Public Opinion on Environmental Issues: Results of a National Public Opinion Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. von Winterfeldt, D., and W. Edwards. 1984. Patterns of conflict about risky technologies. Risk Analysis 4(1):55–68. Weinberg, A. 1977. Is nuclear energy acceptable? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 33(April):54–60. Welch, M. J. 1985. Nuclear-waste disposal reaches critical stage. Letter to the editor, New York Times, March 20.