penditure such as operations and main- tenance and the treatment of storm- water runoff was not related to the level of support for public expenditures in general. The level of support for citizen cleanup efforts and the degree of effec- tiveness of individual efforts as a solu- tion to pollution control were related. Fifty-two percent of all respondents both strongly supported citizen efforts and felt that these efforts were either moderately or very effective solutions to water quality problems. The level of support for the use of land use controls and the degree of effectiveness of land use and growth controls were somewhat related. Fifty-six percent of the respon- dents both strongly supported land use controls and felt that such controls were either moderately or very effective solu- tions to water pollution control.

Other relationships were also evident. The degree of effectiveness of sewage treatment plant construction as a solution to water quality problems was related to the degree of effective- ness of operation and maintenance im- provements. The support for industrial expenditures and the support for citizen cleanup efforts or public expenditures were not related. Support for citizen efforts in pollution control did not ne- cessarily imply support for water con- servation measures. Almost two-thirds of the citizens strongly supporting citi- zen efforts as solutions to water pollu- tion control felt that water conservation was either not an appropriate solution to water pollution control or was only slightly effective. P

CONCLUSIONS

Overall the findings showed that the at- titudes of a highly environmentally con- scious group of New York City citizens on water way usage and the level of water quality desired diverged from those of public agencies responsible for pollution control in the city as well as from the formal public representative, the Citizens Advisory Committee. In choosing implementation strategies,

however, the responding group often did not diverge from positions expressed in available "208" planning documents and policy statements, especially in the areas of favoring more industrial con- trols and not emphasizing water conservation.

For more information contact:

Rae Zimmerman Director, Public Policy Research

Institute Graduate School of Public

Administration New York University 4 Washington Square North New York, New York 10003 Phone (212) 598-3725

Handbooks for Siting Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in New England

Peter Clark and Julia Wondolleck

Three hundred million gallons of haz- ardous waste are generated annually by 4,500 firms throughout New England. The critical question facing New Eng- land today is What to do with these wastes. In an attempt to address this question, the New England Regional Commission (NERCOM) began a haz- ardous waste management program in 1978. NERCOM, a federal-state partner- ship of the six New England state gover- nors and a federal cochairman appointed by the president, serves to maintain and improve the region's economic well- being. Its hazardous waste management program is directed toward encouraging facility development, strong state regu- lations, prompt clean-up of illegal dumps, public education, and waste re- duction and recycling. The facility de- velopment project has undergone two phases.

E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t Assessment Review, V . 1 , N . 3 o~gs.g2ss/ao/ogoooa~gsoa.oo/o EIA REVIEW 1/3 319

~ ' * * ~ ~' . . . . . P * l h l i ch !nG Corporatlon

During Phase I, Arthur D. Little, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, was asked to determine an adequate sys- tem for processing the region's waste oils, solvents, chemicals, and sludge. They concluded that seventeen regional transfer stations, five to ten integrated complexes for treatment, incineration, and landfilling, and two liquid burning incinerators would be necessary, at an estimated cost of $170 million.

NERCOM, however, realized that such a system stood little chance of being developed unless the public 's op- position to hazardous waste faci l i t ies- spurred in part by increasing media coverage of abandoned toxic waste d u m p s - c o u l d be overcome. Therefore, in the second phase of the project, the commission began to consider ways to increase the public 's understanding of the hazardous waste problem and to in- volve them in the hazardous waste man- agement facilities siting process.

Toward this end, NERCOM contracted Clark-McGlennon Associates, of Boston, Massachusetts, to develop a series of handbooks to assist state and communi ty leaders as well as facility sponsors in the difficult process of deciding:

�9 where facilities should be sited;

�9 what technologies are most suitable;

�9 how facilities should be operated to minimize all risks;

�9 what procedures should be followed to license a site, and by whom;

�9 how to develop mit igat ion measures to reduce risks and impacts; and

�9 when to negot ia te compensat ion to increase c o m m u n i t y benefits.

Clark-McGlennon's experience with environmental confl ic t management has taught them tha t uncer ta inty about both the specific detai ls of a develop- mental proposal , and the process by which decisions are made about that proposal, leads to conf l ic t and distrust among affected in teres t groups. Con- sequently, the h a n d b o o k s they designed provide a f r amework in which siting

decisions can be made in a cooperative manner. The series provides technical in- form:ition, anticipates and addresses critical questions, and describes each part icipant 's responsibilities and ap- proaches to satisfy their interests.

TIlE tIANDBOOKS

There are four titles handbook series, including:

in tile

1. Criteria for Evaluating Sites f o r Hazardous Waste Manage. rnent

2. An Introduction to Facili- ties for llazardous Waste Managem en t

3. A Decision Guide fo r Siting Acceptable Hazardous Waste Management Facilities in New England

4. Negotiating to Protect Your In terests

I n addition, Clark-McGlennon prepared a report on "Inst i tut ional Arrangements for Developing Facilities," which in- cludes potential legislative and regula- tory provisions.

The Contents

The Criteria f o r Evaluating Sites and the Introduction to Facilities handbooks are primarily designed as primers to intro- duce the layman to the most important technical characteristics of facilities and sites. There are three principal themes in these handbooks. First, safety (defined as an acceptable degree of risk) is both possible and vital in newly developed hazardous waste management facilities. The new facilities, it is stressed, will have nothing in common with the indis- criminate and illegal dumping of the past. Second, there are a wide range of alternatives for safely handling hazar- " dous waste, including: �9 selection of appropriate technology

and facility types for each waste stream, using "preferred" t reatment methods first, before disposal;

320 EIA REVTEW 1/3

Rendering o f a hypothetical integrated waste management facility.

You are a local selectman or a town resident and a developer has just pointed towards your town as a potential hazardous waste faci l i ty site.

What can you do?

You are a hazardous waste faci l i ty developer and have just announced your intent ion to construct a faci l i ty in a particular town. Everyone has been taken by surprise.

What can you do?

You are a state environmental regulatory off icial and you have just been informed that a developer is proposing a hazardous waste manage- ment faci l i ty in your state. You realize the concerns of local residents and officials. You acknowledge the crit ical need for such a faci l i ty.

What can you do?

The handbooks were designed to help they can do when caught in these situa- these different groups f ind out what tions.

�9 selection of appropriate sites for the particular technology and waste stream;

�9 selection of the incoming waste stream to conform with the capabili- ties of each facility; and

�9 util ization of appropriate "first-line" and "backup" controls, design fea- tures, and operating procedures to "overdesign" for safety.

Third, the relevant information from the technical disciplines involved in hazardous waste management facility development-chemical engineering, groundwater geohydrology, and other environmental and social sciences-can and must be adequately understood by the general public so they may partici- pate constructively in the decision-mak- ing process.

EIA REVIEW 1/3 321

The third handbook, the De- :ision Guide, was designed to help all af- !ected groups participate effectively in :he three phases of the siting process. )uring the orientation phase, the pro- ect is proposed and information about t disseminated. In the consultation ~hase, concerns are raised and issues ~coped. The identified concerns are then lddressed during the negotiation phase. Finally, tradeoffs are made by all affec- ted participants, and agreements are

�9 :eached either to proceed with or reject the facility. The guide poses the most zritical questions that each interest group (community, developer, regulator) must address during a particular phase; then it suggests ways to begin answering those concerns. In addition, it discusses how to do an information search and set up a support network.

If the steps outlined in the Decision Guide are followed, if the other handbooks are used, and if the ap- propriate questions are addressed, each

group should be able to confidently make a decision. This decision might be to support or reject a proposal, to make facility changes, to institute mitigation measures, or to agree on compensation payments. But no matter what the final decision is, the proposed process should allow it to be made with a full under- standing of the facility and an awareness of its consequences.

The messages of the handbook, Negotiating to Protect Your Interests, and the report on "Institutional Ar- rangements," focus on the procedures and concepts that may be t~seful to par- ticipants in the siting process as they ex- plore alternatives and bargain to reach agreement on siting decisions. For example the following themes are among those running through this ma- terial:

�9 In most institutional contexts, both supporters and opponents of pro- posed facilities may have much more to gain by staying " in" the process than by digging in their heels and re-

fusing to explore alternatives with other participants.

�9 The concepts of conflict manage- ment, problem-solving, compromise, "win/win solutions," negotiation, mitigation, and compensation may suggest effective way s in which par- ties can protect and promote their in- terests in HWM facility siting.

�9 A wide range of techniques, general and specific, exist to implement any party's approach for utilizing these "conflict management" concepts, in- cluding negotiation strategies, the use of third party neutrals, and innova- tive risk assessment approaches.

The handbook also explains how to or- ganize negotiating teams. It outlines some of the do's and don'ts of bargain- ing and helps each participant develop a strategy to pursue their goals while col- laborating in the site decision process.

APPLYING TIlE SKILLS AND INIfORMATION

Once the handbooks were completed, NERCOM sponsored Clark-McGlennon to run a three day workshop to evaluate the usefulness of the Decision Guide and information handbooks. The work- shop included several brief situational exercises to familiarize participants with the handbooks and the final decision process to site an incinerator and se- cure landfill.

A simulation was used as a proxy for an actual proposal to plan, evaluate, permit, and contract a waste processing facility. The workshop, held at the University of Massachusetts, was attended by 36 participants, including community representatives, facility de- velopers, technicians, local leaders, and state and federal regulators from the six New England states and Washington, D.C.

The workshop simulation fo- cused on a public hearing at the end of the orientation phase at which all par- ties-at-interest described their concerns and agreed on the issues that should be

322 EIA REVIEW 1/3