U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OS-305
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
c:
o
S
I
-------
Solid waste management has recently become
one of the greatest challenges facing local
public officials. Confronted with increased
amounts of trash needing disposal, closure of
existing facilities, and environmental and health
concerns associated with past practices,
community leaders have found it necessary to
locate new sites for waste management
facilities. The search for new sites, however,
has often been stalled by local residents who
don't want a facility in their neighborhood (the
NIMBY, or "not in my backyard," syndrome).
Consequently, public officials all over the country
have encountered conflict and costly delays in
siting incinerators, landfills, and even recycling
centers.
Some public officials, however, have managed
to successfully site environmentally responsible
waste management facilities by working with
their communities to address solid waste issues.
They have learned that involving the public
throughout the entire planning and decision-
making process is the key to siting an
acceptable, safe, and efficient waste
management facility. To help bcal officials
involve the public in the siting process, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
published a handbook entitled, Sites For Our
Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public
Involvement.
In the past, citizens were often not involved in
.the siting process, and, as a consequence, had
'. little or no say over where a waste management
facility was constructed in their community. The
facility also may have been sited in a rural or
isolated area, where the location would have
generated little controversy.
Today, however, many communities must site
their facilities in more populated areas, or in
locations where the public has planned other
uses for the land, such as recreation. As a
result, more community residents are directly
affected by the siting of a new waste
management facility. Because of inadequate
designs of earlier facilities and other reasons,
many citizens distrust public officials and the
siting process, and are now demanding a role in
today's siting decisions.
In order for officials to channel citizens' legitimate
interest into a constructive dialogue, restore
their trust, and resolve conflict, it is necessary to
involve the public in the siting process from the
very start. This requires extra planning and
resources, but should result in a more
satisfactory, efficient process.
One of the key components of an effective
public involvement plan is allowing an open
exchange of information. Officials must listen to
and understand citizens' concerns, and in turn,
impart credible information to them about the
technical issues involved. The NIMBY
syndrome represents a culmination of citizens'
real concerns related to possible adverse
impacts posed by waste management facilities,
and cannot be dismissed or ignored. At the
same time, citizens need clear and accurate
information about their community's waste
problems and options.
-------
Public involvement should be the centerpiece of
a comprehensive siting strategy that also
includes risk communication, mitigation, and
evaluation.
Risk Communication is the two-way exchange
of information between public officials and
citizens about potential hazards and their
effects, as well as how these hazards are
perceived by the public and how they might be.
managed. Risk communication also involves
relaying technical information in a credible manner
so that the public has all the available information
necessary to make an informed decision.
It might, for example, entail making an objective
and clear presentation on the effectiveness and
reliability of a facility's safeguards, and
addressing any concerns citizens may have.
Facility Siting
People in different areas near a site may
have different priorities, and so officials
face a myriad of potential concerns:
0 Environmental and health risks (such as
ground-water pollution; air quality; and
transportation of materials)
" Economic issues (such as effect on
property values; construction and
operating costs; impact on local industry;
. and compensation plans)
0 Social issues (such as equity in site
choices; effect on community image;
aesthetics; alternative and future
land-uses)
8 Political issues (such as local elections;
vested interests of community groups;
responsibility for site management; and
local control)
Officials in Wisconsin have "at
issue of providing Credible technical';• .-i--^ ^
information to the;]publievand gaining ffie\f..-.•: •
trust. The State of Wisconsin :se't up kn ';
innovative grant program that provides;
funding for community representativesifo
hire their own technical consultants- The
consultants work oh behalf of the citizens-..-';
to oversee technical studies and', : i :.
communicate information about risks.
Mitigation involves negotiating with citizens to
f ihd ways to alleviate potential negative impacts
associated with the siting of a waste management
facility in their community. Since every siting
situation is unique, mitigation requires creative
solutions and flexibility. Public officials can help
mitigate citizens' fears by listening and
responding to their concerns. Officials also
should be prepared to negotiate the fine points
of how and where the facility will operate.
Evaluation enables public officials to determine
whether their strategy is achieving its goals.
Evaluating a siting process every step of the way
can prevent later conflicts and misunderstandings,
and also save money. Some techniques used to
evaluate a process include questionnaires, focus
groups, and telephone surveys. Evaluation can
tell officials whether their public involvement and
education programs are working and if there are
any gaps in information that need to be filled.
The most effective way to site a waste
management facility is for public officials and
citizens to work together throughout the
process. In the end, however, public officials
have the ultimate responsibility for managing
their community's solid waste. If you are
considering siting a facility, encourage public
involvement from the very start.
-------
A Flexible Approach
In the siting of alt facilities, officials must
be 'flexible. Several towns have«
managed to site a facility successfully
and reduce potential risks and anxiety
by accommodating public concerns. In
Northhampfon, Massachusetts, public'
officials,limited the number of trips that
could be made to the regional landfill by
non-local haulers. By taking this action,
officials eased residents' concerns about
negative impacts ori the community. I n
another casei, a developer offered to
guarantee the value of residents'
property to gain public support for a
county landfill.
For a free copy of EPA's manual entitled, Sites
for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective
Public Involvement, write to: RCRA Information
Center, Office of Solid Waste (OS-305), U.S.
EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC
20460, or call EPA's RCRA/Superfund Hotline
from 8:30 anrto 7:30'pm, EST, Monday through
Friday, at (800) 424-9346; for the hearing
impaired, the number is TDD (800) 553-7672.
In Washington, DC, the number is (202)
382-3000 or TDD (202) 475-9652.
Sites for Our Solid Waste:
A Guidebook for Effective
Public Involvement
A New Approach to Siting Municipal
Facility Siting and the Solid Waste
Dilemma
The Siting Process
Building a Siting Strategy
Who Is the Public?
Including the Public in the Process
Techniques for Involving the Public
• Communicating Risks More Effectively
tt Building Credibility for Technical
Information
Mitigating the Negative Impacts
Evaluating Effectiveness of the Siting
Process
------- |