EPA/600/A-t4/218
IMPACT OF DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES
AND COMMUNICATION PROCESSES
ON THE PUBLIC ACCEPT ABILITY
OF MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION RESIDUE UTILIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Frances E. Hoffman
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Department of Urban Planning and Policy Analysis
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering
P.O. Box 909
Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-0909
David S. Kosson
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering
P.O. Box 909
Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-0909
ABSTRACT
Of the identified cun-ent and proposed construction projects in which municipal solid waste
combustion residues replace traditionally used materials, approximately half are located on landfills or
other property controlled by project sponsors, one third are in publicly accessible areas, one is a
commercial use that is categorized separately, and the remainder are to be located at undetermined sites.
Proponents of projects in publicly accessible areas have had difficulty moving plans into action,
primarily due to actual or anticipated public opposition. Most of these proposals remain in extended
planning stages.
This study is being conducted to assess what factors are most critical in determining the
outcome of public acceptability issues in establishing projects in which MWC residues are used.
Literature in the fields of risk management and facility siting ait drawn upon to analyze the efforts to
establish MWC residue projects that must gain public acceptance. Systematic analysis of data collected
to date reveals patterns which suggest that in projects where public acceptability is a critical factor,
earlier inclusion of major interest groups; and open, two-way communication styles, produce a more
effective, efficient overall effort.
1

-------
INTRODUCTION
Construction applications using municipal solid waste combustion (MWC) residue which are
located in publicly accessible areas frequently experience long delays and, in some cases, termination.
Public acceptance has been mentioned most frajuently by managers of projects and technical experts, as
the primary obstacle to MWC residue utilization
National consideration of utilizing residues from municipal solid waste combustion began in the
early 1970'$ with experiments conducted under the auspices 01 the Federal Highway Administration .
Seven road paving demonstrations were conducted to test the engineering or physical characteristics of
asphalt which contained MWC residues in substitution for a portion of the traditional aggregate material.
No environmental impact testing or monitoring was earned out
In the early 1980 s, landfill space scarcity, increased costs of landfilland disposal, and dwindling
local availability of traditionally used aggragate, stimulated renewed interest in MWC residue
utilization. Growing reliance on incineration as a component of solid waste management, and a desire to
recycle waste steams were added motivations for utilisation of the material.
The USEPA initiated several projects to provide information and guidance on the safe
management of MWC residues. The work described in this paper is pan of a larger USEPA study
Sonsored by the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory to analyze MWC residue utilization in the
nited States. The full set of data and the resulting analysis will not be complete until Fall 1993.
Results to date show the emergence of a pattern that corresponds to hypotheses developed from facility
siting, risk communication and risk perception literature. Modification of planning strategies and
communication processes are suggested as potentially productive approaches for lowering costs and the
level of frustration for all associated interest groups.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Locations for new waste management facilities are difficult, if not nearly impossible, to site.
This has been the case in attempts to establish landfills, incinerators, temporary holding facilities,
transfer stations, and even recycling centers. Siting such locally unwanted land uses (LULU's) has been
a particularly critical problem since the early 1980's. 2.3
Factors such as population density, topographic and hydrogeologic characteristics, soil
configuration, and land use patterns limit areas that can be considered initially. In addition, concerns
about health, environmental, and financial impacts of proposed locations, and public policy help shape
the debate over where or if such facilities should be placed. It is a complex phenomenon, often
simplistically and erroneously referred to as the NIMBY syndrome.
Two parameters receiving much recent attention in facility siting literature are (I) the credibility
of different participants in the process 4, and (2) the "outrage" that is felt by those who are excluded or
alienated and have a stake in the outcome 5.6,7 . The first parameter focuses on the importance of who
delivers the message. Who are the primary directors of the effort? How well are they known? What is
their track record? Will they protect the interests of the concerned parties? In other words, can they be
trusted?
The second parameter is an aspect of power, or power denied. "Outrage" is a reaction to being
excluded from significant and respected input into decisions. It stems from not being permitted an entry
into determining what questions are asked. For example, members of the general public are likely to
feel "outrage" when they are told that their reactions opposing MWC residue utilization are "irrational",
while opinions expressed by industry and technical experts, which may be based, in pan, on uncertain
data or improperly applied research data, are highly valued. In addition, technical consultants may feel
"outrage" when their expertise is questioned by people without a detailed scientific understanding of the
project.
Components of the risk management literature, particularly the areas of risk perception and risk
communication have bearing on the concepts of credibility and outrage. Perception of the same risk
situation varies according to the experience, interests, and values of different sets of observers. Risk
interpretations by technical experts, industry representatives, and regulatory officials are more generally
acknowledged as understandable or justifiable, than those expressed by members of the general public.
A set of factors that influence public determination of acceptability of risks has been identified.
A risk is more acceptable if it is voluntary 8 , familiar and natural 9, reversible 1®, and immediate rather
than chronic, except in the case of carcinogens * A risk is more acceptable if it involves individual
control rather than governmental control, and if the source of the risk and the communication agent are
trusted entities
2

-------
The scientific and regulatory communities have supported work in the field of risk
communication 10 address the difference in risk perceptions among groups. Much work focuses on
strategies for getting a message out. This primarily one-way communication emphasis has generated
"how-to" works prepared for government officials and risk analysts ^,14< Others stress the importance
of two-way, open communication in resolving debates between the general public and the regulatory,
technical, and industrial communities 15,16,17. This latter approach acknowledges the validity of each
position, and enhances die opportunity for productive discussion.
METHODS
A study is being carried out to assess the reasons for public acceptance of some utilization
projects and public rejection of other proposed projects. Summary information was collected on all
identified projects in the United States in which the use of municipal waste residues has been
proposed1 ®. Six projects were selected for more detailed study, based on the following criteria. Initial
planning should have taken place within the past five yean, so that recollection of detail would be fairly
accurate. Planning should be sufficiently advanced, and the development of the project complex enough
to wanant this level of attention. In addition, diversity in geographic location and type of application
was sought.
The following are the principal hypotheses being tested in this study.
Central Hypothesis:
Projects are more likely to be implemented when all major interest groups participate throughout
the duration of the decision-making process and when the communication is open and two-way.
Subordinate Hypotheses:
1.	Project implementation is more likely when all major participants are invited to, and in fact
do, participate in the decision-making process, rather than attempting to impose their views
from outside.
2.	The general nature of debate concerning specific MWC residue utilization projects is more
likely to be adversarial and confrontational, and the project is less likely to be implemented if
the following factors are operative: if communication is primarily through the news media, if
information is rarely provided, if it is provided under coercion, if participants have a history of
environmental standard violation, or if the government officials are reputed to be lax in their
enforcement of environmental regulations.
3.	The general nature of debate is more likely to be consensual, and projects more likely to be
implemented if communication is carried out directly, voluntarily, and frequently; if there is a
recognized history of voluntary steps taken to lessen the negative environmental impact of the
project; and if regulations are perceived to be credibly determined and reasonable.
4.	Projects are more likely to be implemented when they are designed to have the least possible
negative environmental impact.
5.	Projects are more likely to be implemented in areas where costs of disposal are high due to
scarcity of available landfill capacity, and where natural aggregate for which MWC residue
may be substituted is expensive and not readily available.
A discussion guide was prepared to assist in gathering information. Key participants were
identified in the following manner. An initial list contained names suggested by project managers.
Each person on the list was contacted and asked to specify people who had active interests in the project.
Proponents and opponents were included. These mulitple lists were cross-referenced, and a final group,
representing each major interest was compiled. The categories included:
° Project managers or designated contact people - those in charge of coordination and/or
responding to requests for information from outside entities;
0 Technical experts - those responsible for designing and carrying out environmental and
engineering performance testing and monitoring;
6 Industry representatives- those from resource recovery facilities or residue processing facilities;
0 Government regulators - state and local officials with permitting authority;
° Environmental advocacy groups - national, regional, and local;
° Elected and appointed officials - state legislators, county commissioners, municipal majors and
commissioners; and
0 Members of the general public - people living in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project
and those living within the region.
Individual discussions ranged from one to two-and-a-half hours. In one case representatives
from major interests were met with in a group at the request of the project sponsors. Visits to the actual
or proposed sites, and collection and review of primary supporting written documents were conducted.
3

-------
Analysis of data collected 10 date reveals patterns which are sufficiently strong to report at this
time. Conclusive analysis and final recommendations cannot be made until all information has been
collected and analyzed. These preliminary findings should be considered in that light.
lindfJ, Incinerator
Of
Project tponsor
High public access
inplemented
not Implemented
4	6	0
number of projects
Figure 1. Sites of Current and Pending Projects (1983-1992)
FINDINGS
Twenty-three current or proposed projects were identified in the United States. This list is not
exhaustive. Combustion industry vendors also are conducting proprietary experiments with MWC
residues. In addition, it is possible that the author is not aware of some projects that exist. It is almost
certain that new projects are being contemplated, because of the pressure on the industry and on
municipalities to manage MWC residues using safe, but lower cost methods.
Eleven projects involve the use of MWC residues in concrete applications. Of those, five
involve using residues in concrete blocks for buildings, four are marine applications, and two fulfill
functions at landfill sites. Six of the remaining twelve projects art asphaltic road paving applications.
Other projects include utilization of granular MSW residue aggregate as the base layer underlying a
paved parking lot, a commercial scale substitution of air pollution control residues for a material in
cement production, and use of combined residues as fill material for an inactive salt mine. The specific
application for three proposed projects has not yet been determined.
Extreme variation in the development of projects was evident. Some were implemented within
two years, while others had been in planning stages for four or five years, or in effect, halted. Several
variables were examined to help explain this occurrence. The most reasonable factor that emerged from
a simple, macro analytical level was "project site". Those projects that were located on landfills or other
property controlled by project sponsors were implemented more rapidly and with greater frequency than
those located in publicly accessible areas (Figure 1). Nine of the ten projects located at landfill sites or
on property owned by a project sponsor have been implemented. The one remaining at a planning stage
has been delayed because of the late discovery of high background levels of contaminants that would
render monitoring tests meaningless.
4

-------
In contrast, projects located in publicly accessible areas have not been implemented with
comparable regularity. Nine projects are tituated in publicly accessible areas. Only three have been
implemented. Of the six roll in planning stages, iwo are likely to be realized in the near future, while
the other four are undergoing rite and overall design reconsideration. Further investigation of the three
existing demonstrations strengthens the location variable impact Two are artificial reef projects, placed
within the same immediate area. Although the ocean floor is technically accessible to the public, it does
not function in that manner. The third project is in a warehouse district which is not used by the general
public with great frequency, and should not be considered publicly accessible in the same way that a
residential or consumer oriented commercial street would be.
In general, proponents of projects in publicly accessible areas have had difficulty moving plans
into action, primarily because of actual or anticipated public opposition. Some project managers have
participated in confrontations with community residents and representatives of environmental advocacy
organizations, while others have worked their plans through in slow, guarded steps, keeping tight control
of the flow of information. Public acceptability of a project appears to be a critical, if not the most
critical, factor in siting and implementing a project in an area that is used in the general everyday life of
a community.
tn
o
UJ
-5
o
tr
a
2
1
2
2
1
3
2
2
Key to numerical representation.
0	* low performance
1	- tow-moderate performance
2	- high-moderate performance
3	- high performance
2
3
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
\ \ \ <€\ \
\ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ * \ *
* * % \
Figure 2. Performance of Proiects Wiih Regard to Selected
Factors Influencing Public Acceptance.
Public Acceptability.
The five projects that have not yet been implemented and are proposed sites for publicly
accessible locations were examined more closely. Figure 2 displays information characterizing the
degree to which the dynamics of each project's development contributed to the public acceptability
parameters set forth in the hypotheses. The rating of "0" indicates low performance with regard to the
parameter. A rating of "3" represents strong activity in areas that generate public acceptance, and "1"
and "2" arc middle ratings for the parameter. It should be noted that data collection is not complete, and
ratings may change as more detailed information is obtained.
5

-------
In the following paragraphs the examples died for different ratings on the 0 to 3 scales for
different factors represent only a portion of those situations taken into consideration. Implementation
practices present too wide a variety of circumstances to be individually described in a paper of this
scope. The ratings summarize various activities, approaches, and events that, taken as a whole, form the
basis of comparison of performance on each parameter.
The "participation'' parameter includes the two variables of breadth of representation and time of
involvement. A rating of "3" would be awarded if all major interest groups were invited to participate
relatively early in the planning process. A rating of "2" would indicate a case where a broad range of
representation was established by the middle of the process. A"l" would be assigned if most, but not all
critical interests were represented toward the end of the process. A zero would be chosen if certain
groups were excluded and were only able to make their views known after the permit was submitted for
approval from appropriate authorities.
The "communication* category refers to how open or closed the communication channels were,
and how much specific attention was paid to communication issues throughout the development of the
project. A "3" rating indicates frequent meetings of a variety of forms, rapid sharing of new information
to participants, and specific attention given to communication strategies and the generation of press
releases, newsletter publications, and the like. A "2" would represent a case in which information is
shared among many participants, but tightly controlled with respect to other partes. A "1" indicates
minor attention to overall communication strategy. A "0" indicates relatively few meetings, selective
sharing of information, and reluctant and unsystematic release of information to the news media.
"Responsiveness" is measured by changes in project design based on input from various
interests. The broader the representation of interests who are the source of pressure for modification,
and the greater the number of adaptations, the higher the rating. For example, a rating of "3" would
indicate a case in which project designs were modified substantially to conform to concerns from a
broad range of interests, whereas a "0" would designate staunch adherence to an original plan. A "2"
would indicate adapting plans to accommodate some, but not all requests from selected interests. A"l"
represents a situation where modifications were made, but with substantial reluctance.
"Credibility" is represented by the environmental and legal track record of each group involved,
and the degree to which one participant's statements are believed by others. It is also measured by the
length of time participants have known each other and are known by the community in which the project
is located. Credibility is also affected by the positions or status participants achieve in their own area of
expertise. A situation in which a "3" would be awarded is where participants readily believed and
misted each other, were viewed as environmentally responsible by members of the planning group and
by the public-at-large, and who had known each other over a long period of time. An example of a "2"
rating would be where a high level of trust existed within the primary planning group, but some
questions remained concerning intent and former practices associated with institutions affiliated with
project sponsors. AT" represents a case where there is question of credibility among participants and
in interactions with the general public. A "0" rating would indicate distrust among representatives of
interests who have had no experience with each other, where at least some have acted in bad faith, or are
known to have violated environmental regulations.
"Environmental Impact" encompasses measures that were taken during project design that
minimize negative environmental impacts. Practices such as using bottom MWC residues only, rather
than combined residues, and scaling the project so that it is no larger than what experimental rigor
dictates are examples of actions that can be taken to reduce environmental impact. Other measures that
minimize environmental impact are selecting a site removed from high public access and potential
exposure that does not potentially jeopardize surface or ground water bodies, and planning an
experimental design that includes background testing and life cycle considerations. In addition, taking
precautionary steps to ensure worker safety, and providing enclosures for performing dust generating
operations would be noted in this category. Special fetors, such as mitigating other environmental
problems with the proposed application are also included in this category. The greater the number of
these environmentally cautious actions taken, the higher the rating.
"Resources" refers to the relative scarcity of landfill space and natural aggregate. A "3" is
awarded if new landfill sites have been successfully resisted in the immediate area, if municipal waste
and MWC residues must be transported out-of-state for disposal, if the population density is high, and
the water table and drainage characteristics of the location make landfill siting unlikely. In addition,
natural aggregate is expensive and difficult to obtain. A rating of "0" indicates some successful landfill
siting in the immediate area, and an abundance of naturally occurring aggregate for construction use. A
"1" indicates successful siting and scarce aggregate. A "2" might indicate a situation where aggregate is
readily available and siting efforts have failed.
6

-------
Two projects, Cand E, are noteworthy. Both are characterized by early involvement of a wide
range of interest groups. In project C thai emphasis is most marked. The project manager and contact
persons state their approach: We try to think of who would be opposed and invite them in to discuss the
idea," This is a contrast to the more characteristic pattern of trying to avoid opposition, usually
environmental advocacy groups. In both projects specific attention is given to ensuring open and broad
communication, and responsiveness to suggestions for modification. "Nobody has all the angles or
answers. Everyone has different questions they want asked ...different concerns". "We try to keep
everybody informed and up~to- date. It takes alot of time, but it pays off."
The factors of participation , communication, and responsiveness are engaged differently in
projects A, B, and D. The manager and one of the sponsors of a project characterize their situation as a
polarized fight: "This is a batde. We have to convince themAnd in another, one of the most active
members of a successful opposition group indicated that he would probably not have fought the project
with such vengeance "if they (the project supporters in the locality) hadn't suggested that I be quiet and
go home." Although in all projects, original plans were modified to some extent, the changes were
accomplished in a more consensual manner in projects C, D, and E. Requests for altering project design
In projects A and B were met with strong resistance. Debates became polarized and emotional among
proponents and opponents alike.
A high degree of credibility and trust by the residents of the localities for the program sponsors
and among the sponsors themselves was unique to Projects C and E. Admiration and appreciation of the
high caliber of skills brought to the project's development by each participant was evident. This was the
case across technical /non-technical lines as well as within the professions. "You see alot of snake oil
salesmen in my work...", but the remainder of the sentence assured the listener that this project group
contained none. People knew each other and were familiar with their previous work ana reputations.
Responses from community residents indicated a high degree of trust in project participants: "If	
says it's okay, then it's fine with me", or "If there's a problem, I know	would be right on it."
Although in the other projects there might be a high degree of respect among sponsors, mist is
not as evident, not in relations to outsiders, and sometimes not between sponsors. In some instances
there is a reluctance to discuss project details with anyone but those intimately connected to the project's
development. In others, where sponsors and representatives of interest groups are willing to talk about
the process, lack of trust and questions of credibility among interest groups is directly expressed.
"Those were lies". "I was clearly set up for that blow." They misrepresent information for their own
purposes." "They're not interested in the truth." "AH they want to do is make money right now, they
aren't interested in the long term safety (of the ash)".
Motivations and intentions of different parties may be linked to the success of the project.
Project sponsors and proponents may be so pressured by cost concerns or so convinced that there is
minimal risk in using MWC residue in the project, that they do not recognize the validity of questions
from other sources. Experimental design and testing protocol are more likely to be compromised in this
case. The approach to the effort is "We're going to show that this (MWC residue) is safe.", rather than
"What is safe, and how can we best determine if it is?" Projects A, B, D, and E are presented more like
demonstrations than experiments. In contrast, the attitude of the principal sponsors of Project C was
"Let's see what happens. It sounds like a good idea, but if it isn't safe, we shouldn't be using it. We
think it'll be fine, but in case it isn't...if the tests show it isn't safe, we'll pull it right up." Plans include
storing replacement material on site for immediate action. In most other projects, liability and
removal/replacement issues are dealt with grudgingly by project sponsors. In addition, the construction
application of project C was performed to resolve an environmental problem.
The "Resource" ratings reflect a universal difficulty in siting new landfills. In areas that appear
to have appropriate land mass available, the high colloquial value placed on farm land makes siting
virtually impossible. In addition, in all but one project, traditionally used natural aggregate is in short
supply.
To illustrate the difference among these publicly accessible projects in another manner, the sum
of the hypothesis ratings for each project was plotted against time spent in planning (Figure 3). There
appears to be an inverse relationship between the level of effort directed toward the public acceptance
parameters and the length of time consumed in planning stages. Project C, represented by the point at
the upper left corner of the chart, is likely to be implemented within 1 1/2 years from planning initiation.
Project E is now targeted for start-up after three years of planning. Project D may be terminated for
reasons other than local environmentally concerned opposition, and if it proceeds, a new site must be
chosen. Projects A and B may be implemented, but in one case a new site must be identified and other
parameters may change. In project A, the issue of utilization itself is being debated. Site selection is not
even being discussed at this point.
7

-------
Planning Tim£ in Yt**S
J Y«in «> Ptonnng Conoccd to Ovtns »«rfonnjnc» on ficton
influencing Pub* Aeceoanct. by Proier.
CONCLUSIONS.
If these preliminary results accurately represent some aspects of the dynamics of MWC residue
utilization projects, the following conclusions can be drawn:
0 MWC residue udlizadon projects are more likely to be implemented in areas of low public
accessibility and on property owned and controlled by project sponsors, such as landfill sites,
incinerator facility locations, city-owned parking lots, and non-residential areas;
0 Implementation or consensus is more likely when all major interest groups are included in
very early stages of project planning and throughout the remainder of the process;
0 Implementation or consensus is more likely when open, two-way, responsive communication
is consciously planned and built into the development process; and,
0 Implementation or consensus is more likely when credibility and trust are high among all
participants.
The following recommendations might be considered by those wishing to conduct field
experiments in instances where MWC residues are being used. If it is necessary to site the projects in
areas of high public accessibility, involve all interest groups in the planning from the beginning. In any
case, develop a communications plan for the project, and be accepting, honest, respectful and responsive
in interacting with opponents, neutral observers, and proponents alike. Shrouding and withholding
information will only increase distrust. If possible, select people who are well known, highly regarded,
and solidly trusted by a wide spectrum of the local community.
There is no guarantee that by involving representatives from all major interest groups from the
initial phases on, and keeping communication open and actively two-way, projects will be sited in
publicly accessible areas and MWC residues will receive approval for widespread use. It might be
determined that resources ought to be channeled in other directions. A project may contain elements
that are too high risk to be considered. Finally, unforeseen political factors beyond the influence of
project proponents may override support.
8

-------
Acknowledgement
This work it being funded by USEPA, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory under
Cooperative Agreement. CR818178-01-0, Carlton Wiles, Project Officer. The views expressed in this
paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily express views or policies of USEPA.
Key Words
combustion residues, ash utilization, public acceptability, risk perception, risk communication,
decision making
1.	FJE. Hoffman, ""Findings from initial discussions with people involved in MWC residue utilization
projects". Unpublished Report Rutgers, the State University of Hew Jersey, Department of Chemical
and Biochemical Engineering, 1991.
2.	Resolving Locational Conflicts. R.W. Lake, Ed.; Center for Urban Policy Research, Hew Brunswick,
HJ„ 1987, p.448.
3.	Facility Siting and Public Opposition. M. O'Hare, L. Bacow, and D. Sanderson, Eds.Van Nostrand
Rcinhold Company, Inc., New York, 1983, p.223.
4.	M.R. Greenberg and R.F. Anderson, Hazardous Waste Sites. The Credibility Gap. Center for Urban
Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, 1984, p.276.
5.	P.M. Sandman, "Hazard Versus Outrage: The Case of Radon", paper presented at the Symposium
on Science Communication, Annenbery School of Comunications, University of Southern California,
Las Angeles, California. December 15-17, 1988.
6.	DJ. Fiorino, "Environmental Risk and Democratic Process: A Critical Review, Columbia Journal of
Environmental Law. Vol.l4,No.2,1989pp.501-547.
7.	B. Fischhoff, "Informed Consent in Societal Risk-Benefit Decisions", Technological Forecasting and
Social Change. Vol.13, 1979,0.347-359.
8.	P. Slovic, "Perception of Risk", Science. Vol.236, April 17,1987, pp.280-285.
9.	B.N. Ames, R. Magaw, L.S. Gold, "Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards", Science. Vol.17, April
1987, pp. 271-277,
10.	D. Von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, "Patterns of Conflict About Risky Technologies", Risk
Analysis. Vol.4, No.l. 1984, pp. 55-68.
11.	B. Fischhoff, O. Svenson, P. Slovic, "Active Responses to Environmental Hazards: Perceptions and
Decision-Making" in The Handbook of Environmental Psychology. D. Stokols and I. Airman, Eds,
Wiley, New York, 1987.
12.	B. Fischhoff, S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic,"How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of
Attitudes Towareds Technological Risks and Benefits" Policy Sciences. Vol.9,pp.127-152.
13.	J J. Cohrssen, and V. Covello, Risk Analysis: A Guide to Principles and Methods for Anal vzin p
Hcallh and Environmental RisHs-, Springfield, Virginia, The National Technical Information Service,
1989.
14.	S. Hadden and B.V. Bales, "Risk Communications Abou;Chemicals in Your Community. A Manual
for Local Officials", draft, Prepared for the USEPA at the University of Texas at Austin, 1989.
15.	C. Chess, B J. Hance, P.M. Sandman, "Improving Dialogue with Communities: A Short Guide for
Government Risk Communication." A Document Submitted to the NJ.D.E.P., Division of Science and
Research. Prepared by the Environmental Research Program, HJ. Agricultural Experimental Station,
Cook College, Rutgers University, 1989.
16.	B. Fischhoff, Psychology: Tool or Tool Maker?". American Psychologist. Vnl.45 1990, pp.57-63.
17.	C. Chess, A. Saville, M. Greenberg, M. Tamuz, "From Crisis to Credibility: Behind the Scenes of
the Risk Communication Program of Sybron Chemicals, Inc." Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey. New Brunswick, 1991.
18.	F.E. Hoffman and D.S. Kosson "Municipal Solid Waste Combustion Residue Utilization
Demonstration Project Summaries, USA." Draft Document. USEPA/RREL, 1992.
9

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instruclicns on the reverse before eomplet
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/A-94/218
2.
3.
4. title and subtitle impact of Decision-Making Strategies
and Communication Processes on the Public Acceptability
of Municipal Waste Combustion Residue Utilization in
the United States
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
authorise Frances E. Hoffman*, David S. Kosson2
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
1Rutgers, The State Univ. of New Jersey, Dept. of Urban
Planning and Policy Anslysis, Piscataway, NJ 08855
^Rutgers, The State Univ. of New Jersey, Dept. of
Chemical and Biochemical Engrg., Piscataway, NJ
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory—Cinti, OH
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published Paper
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. supplementary NOTES Project Officer = Carlton Wiles (513)569-7795
1993 MWC International Conference, Research Triangle Parks, NC, May 1993
p: 1-9
16. ABSTRACT
Of the identified current and proposed construction projects in which municipal
solid waste combustion residues replace traditionally used materials, approximately
half are located on landfills or other property controlled by project sponsors, one
third are in publicly accessible areas, one is a commercial use that is categorized
separately, and the remainder are to be located at undetermined sites. Proponents of
projects in publicly accessible areas have difficulty moving plans into action,
primarily due to actual or anticipated public opposition. Most of these proposals
remain in extended planning stages.
This study is being conducted to assess what factors are most critical in
determining the out come of public acceptability issues in establishing projects in
which MWC residues are used. Literature in the fields of risk management and
facility siting are drawn upon to analyze the efforts to establish MWC residue
projects that must gain public acceptance. Systematic analysis of data collected to
date reveals patterns which suggest that in projects where public acceptability is
a critical factor, earlier inclusion of major interest groups; and open, two-way
communication styles, produce a more effective, efficient overall effort.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. cosati Field/Group
Municipal Waste Combustion Residues,
Ash Utilization


18, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
10
RELEASE TO PUBLIC

20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
nNfT.AKRTFTFT")
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R»». 4-7?) previous
EDITION IS OBSOLETE

-------